<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>http://wiki.icar.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Cmosconi</id>
	<title>ICAR Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://wiki.icar.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Cmosconi"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Special:Contributions/Cmosconi"/>
	<updated>2026-08-11T19:50:36Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.41.1</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5067</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5067"/>
		<updated>2026-08-11T18:19:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Jenko et al., 2008, 2010 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Gerke et al., 2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Gerke.xlsx here] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|thumb|636x636px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)|thumb|511x511px]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation example ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Jenko.xlsx here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method estimates daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY), and daily protein yield (DPY) in the alternate one-milking recording (T) scheme. Daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are then derived from the daily yield (DY) estimates. Utilizing this method allows us to remove the risk of underestimating high and overestimating low DY and contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate the DY from the partial yield (PY) and the estimated PY/DY ratio (y):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DY=PY&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;/y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the subscript i is either morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The value of y is calculated based on the milking interval in minutes (MI), estimated intercept (µ) and regression coefficients (b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;) for yield traits in a.m. or p.m. milking using the following equations for DMY and DPY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Model for milk yield and protein yield.&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and for DFY &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Model for fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept and regression coefficients can be either estimated from the data with records from both a.m. and p.m. milking or the estimates from Table 1 can be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Intercept and regression coefficients for calculation of daily yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily yield&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;µ&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005503000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005683000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005419000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005593000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY .&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0005093000&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0000005377&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0006705000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0000002744&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are calculated from the estimated DY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DFP=DFY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DPP=DPY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calulation example with method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Example of the calculations of daily yields from morning milking and evening milking is presented in tables 3 and 4. Data from the Delorenzo and Wiggans method is used in the calculations (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Data for morning and evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of recording&lt;br /&gt;
|06:15&lt;br /&gt;
|20:22&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|06:35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking interval (min)&lt;br /&gt;
|770&lt;br /&gt;
|827&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking results&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Calculation of partial yield (PY) and calculation of y value.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|y&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000 + 0,0005503000 x 770  = 0,531831&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000 + 0,0005683000 x 827 = 0,558404&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 3,45 = 0,41&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000 + 0,0005419000 x 770 = 0,529663&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 3,40 = 0,48&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000 + 0,0005593000 x 827 = 0,559181&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,12 = 0,49&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000 -0,0005093000 x 770 + 0,0000005377  x 770&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,516941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,00 = 0,56&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000 +0,0006705000 x 827 - 0,0000002744  x 827&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,524233&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Calculation of daily yield (DY, kg) and daily components (DY, %).&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|DY&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 0,531831 = 22,56356&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 0,531831 = 25,07145&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,41 / 0,529663 = 0,781629&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,781629 / 22,56356) x 100 = 3,46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,48 / 0,559181 = 0,851245&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,851245 / 25,07145) x 100 = 3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,49 / 0,516941 = 0,956395&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,956395 / 22,56356) x 100 = 4,24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,56 / 0,524233 = 1,068227&lt;br /&gt;
|(1,068227 / 25,07145) x 100 = 4,26&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== References ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Logar, B., Sadar, M., Ivanovič, B., Jeretina, J., Verbič, J., Podgoršek, P. 2008. Comparison of different models for estimating daily yields from a.m./p.m. milkings in Slovenian dairy scheme. Presented at the 36th ICAR Session, Niagara Falls, New York, United States, June 16-20, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Gorjanc G., Babnik, D. 2010. Evaluation of different approaches for the estimation of daily yield from single milk testing scheme in cattle, J. Dairy Res., 77 (2010), pp. 137-143; DOI: 10.1017/S0022029909990586&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3 - A unified Python implementation of standardized 305 day yield calculation methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR guideline is translated into an open-source Python package that can serve as a reference implementation for 305-day yield calculation. In addition to implementing the methods described in the original guideline (with the exception of the multi-trait method, which will be added in future work), the package incorporates 14 lactation-curve models, including traditional parametric models, Bayesian fitting approaches, and an AI-based model. The package also provides tools to derive biologically relevant lactation characteristics such as time to peak, peak yield, cumulative yield, and persistency. The package is publicly available through PyPI and can be installed directly using pip install lactationcurve (van Leerdam et al., 2026). Extensive documentation was developed alongside the package to improve transparency and reproducibility [https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html.]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through a companioning website (https://tools.bovi-analytics.org&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;/), users can upload milk-recording data in CSV format, fit and visualize the implemented lactation-curve models, and compare different cumulative milk-yield methodologies on both test-day and fully daily-recorded lactations using metrics such as RMSE, Pearson correlation, MAPE, and MAE. Reference datasets are provided to allow organizations to benchmark their own calculations against alternative methodologies. In addition, downloadable PDF reports summarize the results through detailed statistics and scatterplots, both overall and stratified by parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5066</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5066"/>
		<updated>2026-07-22T18:12:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Gerke et al., 2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Gerke.xlsx here] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|thumb|636x636px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)|thumb|511x511px]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Jenko et al., 2008, 2010 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Jenko.xlsx here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method estimates daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY), and daily protein yield (DPY) in the alternate one-milking recording (T) scheme. Daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are then derived from the daily yield (DY) estimates. Utilizing this method allows us to remove the risk of underestimating high and overestimating low DY and contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate the DY from the partial yield (PY) and the estimated PY/DY ratio (y):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DY=PY&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;/y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the subscript i is either morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The value of y is calculated based on the milking interval in minutes (MI), estimated intercept (µ) and regression coefficients (b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;) for yield traits in a.m. or p.m. milking using the following equations for DMY and DPY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Model for milk yield and protein yield.&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and for DFY &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Model for fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept and regression coefficients can be either estimated from the data with records from both a.m. and p.m. milking or the estimates from Table 1 can be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Intercept and regression coefficients for calculation of daily yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily yield&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;µ&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005503000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005683000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005419000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005593000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY .&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0005093000&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0000005377&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0006705000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0000002744&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are calculated from the estimated DY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DFP=DFY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DPP=DPY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calulation example with method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Example of the calculations of daily yields from morning milking and evening milking is presented in tables 3 and 4. Data from the Delorenzo and Wiggans method is used in the calculations (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Data for morning and evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of recording&lt;br /&gt;
|06:15&lt;br /&gt;
|20:22&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|06:35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking interval (min)&lt;br /&gt;
|770&lt;br /&gt;
|827&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking results&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Calculation of partial yield (PY) and calculation of y value.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|y&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000 + 0,0005503000 x 770  = 0,531831&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000 + 0,0005683000 x 827 = 0,558404&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 3,45 = 0,41&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000 + 0,0005419000 x 770 = 0,529663&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 3,40 = 0,48&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000 + 0,0005593000 x 827 = 0,559181&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,12 = 0,49&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000 -0,0005093000 x 770 + 0,0000005377  x 770&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,516941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,00 = 0,56&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000 +0,0006705000 x 827 - 0,0000002744  x 827&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,524233&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Calculation of daily yield (DY, kg) and daily components (DY, %).&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|DY&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 0,531831 = 22,56356&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 0,531831 = 25,07145&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,41 / 0,529663 = 0,781629&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,781629 / 22,56356) x 100 = 3,46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,48 / 0,559181 = 0,851245&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,851245 / 25,07145) x 100 = 3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,49 / 0,516941 = 0,956395&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,956395 / 22,56356) x 100 = 4,24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,56 / 0,524233 = 1,068227&lt;br /&gt;
|(1,068227 / 25,07145) x 100 = 4,26&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== References ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Logar, B., Sadar, M., Ivanovič, B., Jeretina, J., Verbič, J., Podgoršek, P. 2008. Comparison of different models for estimating daily yields from a.m./p.m. milkings in Slovenian dairy scheme. Presented at the 36th ICAR Session, Niagara Falls, New York, United States, June 16-20, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Gorjanc G., Babnik, D. 2010. Evaluation of different approaches for the estimation of daily yield from single milk testing scheme in cattle, J. Dairy Res., 77 (2010), pp. 137-143; DOI: 10.1017/S0022029909990586&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3 - A unified Python implementation of standardized 305 day yield calculation methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR guideline is translated into an open-source Python package that can serve as a reference implementation for 305-day yield calculation. In addition to implementing the methods described in the original guideline (with the exception of the multi-trait method, which will be added in future work), the package incorporates 14 lactation-curve models, including traditional parametric models, Bayesian fitting approaches, and an AI-based model. The package also provides tools to derive biologically relevant lactation characteristics such as time to peak, peak yield, cumulative yield, and persistency. The package is publicly available through PyPI and can be installed directly using pip install lactationcurve (van Leerdam et al., 2026). Extensive documentation was developed alongside the package to improve transparency and reproducibility [https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html.]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through a companioning website (https://tools.bovi-analytics.org&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;/), users can upload milk-recording data in CSV format, fit and visualize the implemented lactation-curve models, and compare different cumulative milk-yield methodologies on both test-day and fully daily-recorded lactations using metrics such as RMSE, Pearson correlation, MAPE, and MAE. Reference datasets are provided to allow organizations to benchmark their own calculations against alternative methodologies. In addition, downloadable PDF reports summarize the results through detailed statistics and scatterplots, both overall and stratified by parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5065</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5065"/>
		<updated>2026-07-22T17:59:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Gerke et al., 2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Gerke.xlsx here] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|thumb|636x636px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)|thumb|511x511px]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Jenko et al., 2008, 2010 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Jenko.xlsx here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method estimates daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY), and daily protein yield (DPY) in the alternate one-milking recording (T) scheme. Daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are then derived from the daily yield (DY) estimates. Utilizing this method allows us to remove the risk of underestimating high and overestimating low DY and contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate the DY from the partial yield (PY) and the estimated PY/DY ratio (y):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DY=PY&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;/y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the subscript i is either morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The value of y is calculated based on the milking interval in minutes (MI), estimated intercept (µ) and regression coefficients (b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;) for yield traits in a.m. or p.m. milking using the following equations for DMY and DPY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Model for milk yield and protein yield.&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and for DFY &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Model for fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept and regression coefficients can be either estimated from the data with records from both a.m. and p.m. milking or the estimates from Table 1 can be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Intercept and regression coefficients for calculation of daily yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily yield&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;µ&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005503000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005683000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005419000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005593000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY .&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0005093000&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0000005377&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0006705000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0000002744&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are calculated from the estimated DY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DFP=DFY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DPP=DPY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calulation example with method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Example of the calculations of daily yields from morning milking and evening milking is presented in tables 3 and 4. Data from the Delorenzo and Wiggans method is used in the calculations (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Data for morning and evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of recording&lt;br /&gt;
|06:15&lt;br /&gt;
|20:22&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|06:35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking interval (min)&lt;br /&gt;
|770&lt;br /&gt;
|827&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking results&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Calculation of partial yield (PY) and calculation of y value.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|y&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000 + 0,0005503000 x 770  = 0,531831&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000 + 0,0005683000 x 827 = 0,558404&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 3,45 = 0,41&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000 + 0,0005419000 x 770 = 0,529663&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 3,40 = 0,48&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000 + 0,0005593000 x 827 = 0,559181&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,12 = 0,49&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000 -0,0005093000 x 770 + 0,0000005377  x 770&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,516941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,00 = 0,56&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000 +0,0006705000 x 827 - 0,0000002744  x 827&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,524233&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Calculation of daily yield (DY, kg) and daily components (DY, %).&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|DY&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 0,531831 = 22,56356&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 0,531831 = 25,07145&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,41 / 0,529663 = 0,781629&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,781629 / 22,56356) x 100 = 3,46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,48 / 0,559181 = 0,851245&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,851245 / 25,07145) x 100 = 3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,49 / 0,516941 = 0,956395&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,956395 / 22,56356) x 100 = 4,24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,56 / 0,524233 = 1,068227&lt;br /&gt;
|(1,068227 / 25,07145) x 100 = 4,26&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== References ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Logar, B., Sadar, M., Ivanovič, B., Jeretina, J., Verbič, J., Podgoršek, P. 2008. Comparison of different models for estimating daily yields from a.m./p.m. milkings in Slovenian dairy scheme. Presented at the 36th ICAR Session, Niagara Falls, New York, United States, June 16-20, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Gorjanc G., Babnik, D. 2010. Evaluation of different approaches for the estimation of daily yield from single milk testing scheme in cattle, J. Dairy Res., 77 (2010), pp. 137-143; DOI: 10.1017/S0022029909990586&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3 - A unified Python implementation of standardized 305 day yield calculation methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR guideline is translated into an open-source Python package that can serve as a reference implementation for 305-day yield calculation. In addition to implementing the methods described in the original guideline (with the exception of the multi-trait method, which will be added in future work), the package incorporates 14 lactation-curve models, including traditional parametric models, Bayesian fitting approaches, and an AI-based model. The package also provides tools to derive biologically relevant lactation characteristics such as time to peak, peak yield, cumulative yield, and persistency. The package is publicly available through PyPI and can be installed directly using pip install lactationcurve (van Leerdam et al., 2026). Extensive documentation was developed alongside the package to improve transparency and reproducibility [https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html.]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through a companioning website (https://tools.bovi-analytics.org&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;/), users can upload milk-recording data in CSV format, fit and visualize the implemented lactation-curve models, and compare different cumulative milk-yield methodologies on both test-day and fully daily-recorded lactations using metrics such as RMSE, Pearson correlation, MAPE, and MAE. Reference datasets are provided to allow organizations to benchmark their own calculations against alternative methodologies. In addition, downloadable PDF reports summarize the results through detailed statistics and scatterplots, both overall and stratified by parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5064</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5064"/>
		<updated>2026-07-22T17:55:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Gerke et al., 2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Gerke.xlsx here] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|thumb|636x636px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)|thumb|511x511px]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Jenko et al., 2008, 2010 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Jenko.xlsx here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method estimates daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY), and daily protein yield (DPY) in the alternate one-milking recording (T) scheme. Daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are then derived from the daily yield (DY) estimates. Utilizing this method allows us to remove the risk of underestimating high and overestimating low DY and contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate the DY from the partial yield (PY) and the estimated PY/DY ratio (y):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DY=PY&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;/y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the subscript i is either morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The value of y is calculated based on the milking interval in minutes (MI), estimated intercept (µ) and regression coefficients (b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;) for yield traits in a.m. or p.m. milking using the following equations for DMY and DPY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Model for milk yield and protein yield.&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and for DFY &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Model for fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept and regression coefficients can be either estimated from the data with records from both a.m. and p.m. milking or the estimates from Table 1 can be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Intercept and regression coefficients for calculation of daily yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily yield&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;µ&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005503000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005683000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005419000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005593000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY .&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0005093000&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0000005377&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0006705000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0000002744&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are calculated from the estimated DY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DFP=DFY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DPP=DPY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calulation example with method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Example of the calculations of daily yields from morning milking and evening milking is presented in tables 3 and 4. Data from the Delorenzo and Wiggans method is used in the calculations (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Data for morning and evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of recording&lt;br /&gt;
|06:15&lt;br /&gt;
|20:22&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|06:35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking interval (min)&lt;br /&gt;
|770&lt;br /&gt;
|827&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking results&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Calculation of partial yield (PY) and calculation of y value.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|y&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000 + 0,0005503000 x 770  = 0,531831&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000 + 0,0005683000 x 827 = 0,558404&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 3,45 = 0,41&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000 + 0,0005419000 x 770 = 0,529663&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 3,40 = 0,48&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000 + 0,0005593000 x 827 = 0,559181&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,12 = 0,49&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000 -0,0005093000 x 770 + 0,0000005377  x 770&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,516941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,00 = 0,56&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000 +0,0006705000 x 827 - 0,0000002744  x 827&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,524233&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Calculation of daily yield (DY, kg) and daily components (DY, %).&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|DY&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 0,531831 = 22,56356&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 0,531831 = 25,07145&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,41 / 0,529663 = 0,781629&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,781629 / 22,56356) x 100 = 3,46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,48 / 0,559181 = 0,851245&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,851245 / 25,07145) x 100 = 3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,49 / 0,516941 = 0,956395&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,956395 / 22,56356) x 100 = 4,24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,56 / 0,524233 = 1,068227&lt;br /&gt;
|(1,068227 / 25,07145) x 100 = 4,26&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== References ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Logar, B., Sadar, M., Ivanovič, B., Jeretina, J., Verbič, J., Podgoršek, P. 2008. Comparison of different models for estimating daily yields from a.m./p.m. milkings in Slovenian dairy scheme. Presented at the 36th ICAR Session, Niagara Falls, New York, United States, June 16-20, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Gorjanc G., Babnik, D. 2010. Evaluation of different approaches for the estimation of daily yield from single milk testing scheme in cattle, J. Dairy Res., 77 (2010), pp. 137-143; DOI: 10.1017/S0022029909990586&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3 - A unified Python implementation of standardized 305 day yield calculation methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR guideline is translated into an open-source Python package that can serve as a reference implementation for 305-day yield calculation. In addition to implementing the methods described in the original guideline (with the exception of the multi-trait method, which will be added in future work), the package incorporates 14 lactation-curve models, including traditional parametric models, Bayesian fitting approaches, and an AI-based model. The package also provides tools to derive biologically relevant lactation characteristics such as time to peak, peak yield, cumulative yield, and persistency. The package is publicly available through PyPI and can be installed directly using pip install lactationcurve (van Leerdam et al., 2026). Extensive documentation was developed alongside the package to improve transparency and reproducibility [https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html.]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through a companioning website (https://tools.bovi-analytics.org&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;/), users can upload milk-recording data in CSV format, fit and visualize the implemented lactation-curve models, and compare different cumulative milk-yield methodologies on both test-day and fully daily-recorded lactations using metrics such as RMSE, Pearson correlation, MAPE, and MAE. Reference datasets are provided to allow organizations to benchmark their own calculations against alternative methodologies. In addition, downloadable PDF reports summarize the results through detailed statistics and scatterplots, both overall and stratified by parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5063</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5063"/>
		<updated>2026-07-22T17:53:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Gerke et al., 2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Gerke.xlsx here] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|thumb|636x636px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)|thumb|511x511px]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Jenko et al., 2008, 2010 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Jenko.xlsx here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method estimates daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY), and daily protein yield (DPY) in the alternate one-milking recording (T) scheme. Daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are then derived from the daily yield (DY) estimates. Utilizing this method allows us to remove the risk of underestimating high and overestimating low DY and contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate the DY from the partial yield (PY) and the estimated PY/DY ratio (y):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DY=PY&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;/y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the subscript i is either morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The value of y is calculated based on the milking interval in minutes (MI), estimated intercept (µ) and regression coefficients (b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;) for yield traits in a.m. or p.m. milking using the following equations for DMY and DPY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Model for milk yield and protein yield.&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and for DFY &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Model for fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept and regression coefficients can be either estimated from the data with records from both a.m. and p.m. milking or the estimates from Table 1 can be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Intercept and regression coefficients for calculation of daily yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily yield&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;µ&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005503000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005683000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005419000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005593000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY .&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0005093000&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0000005377&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0006705000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0000002744&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are calculated from the estimated DY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DFP=DFY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DPP=DPY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calulation example with method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Example of the calculations of daily yields from morning milking and evening milking is presented in tables 3 and 4. Data from the Delorenzo and Wiggans method is used in the calculations (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Data for morning and evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of recording&lt;br /&gt;
|06:15&lt;br /&gt;
|20:22&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|06:35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking interval (min)&lt;br /&gt;
|770&lt;br /&gt;
|827&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking results&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Calculation of partial yield (PY) and calculation of y value.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|y&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000 + 0,0005503000 x 770  = 0,531831&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000 + 0,0005683000 x 827 = 0,558404&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 3,45 = 0,41&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000 + 0,0005419000 x 770 = 0,529663&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 3,40 = 0,48&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000 + 0,0005593000 x 827 = 0,559181&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,12 = 0,49&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000 -0,0005093000 x 770 + 0,0000005377  x 770&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,516941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,00 = 0,56&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000 +0,0006705000 x 827 - 0,0000002744  x 827&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,524233&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Calculation of daily yield (DY, kg) and daily components (DY, %).&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|DY&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 0,531831 = 22,56356&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 0,531831 = 25,07145&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,41 / 0,529663 = 0,781629&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,781629 / 22,56356) x 100 = 3,46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,48 / 0,559181 = 0,851245&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,851245 / 25,07145) x 100 = 3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,49 / 0,516941 = 0,956395&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,956395 / 22,56356) x 100 = 4,24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,56 / 0,524233 = 1,068227&lt;br /&gt;
|(1,068227 / 25,07145) x 100 = 4,26&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== References ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Logar, B., Sadar, M., Ivanovič, B., Jeretina, J., Verbič, J., Podgoršek, P. 2008. Comparison of different models for estimating daily yields from a.m./p.m. milkings in Slovenian dairy scheme. Presented at the 36th ICAR Session, Niagara Falls, New York, United States, June 16-20, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Gorjanc G., Babnik, D. 2010. Evaluation of different approaches for the estimation of daily yield from single milk testing scheme in cattle, J. Dairy Res., 77 (2010), pp. 137-143; DOI: 10.1017/S0022029909990586&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3 - A unified Python implementation of standardized 305 day yield calculation methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR guideline is translated into an open-source Python package that can serve as a reference implementation for 305-day yield calculation. In addition to implementing the methods described in the original guideline (with the exception of the multi-trait method, which will be added in future work), the package incorporates 14 lactation-curve models, including traditional parametric models, Bayesian fitting approaches, and an AI-based model. The package also provides tools to derive biologically relevant lactation characteristics such as time to peak, peak yield, cumulative yield, and persistency. The package is publicly available through PyPI and can be installed directly using pip install lactationcurve (van Leerdam et al., 2026). Extensive documentation was developed alongside the package to improve transparency and reproducibility [https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html.]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through a companioning website (https://tools.bovi-analytics.org&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;/), users can upload milk-recording data in CSV format, fit and visualize the implemented lactation-curve models, and compare different cumulative milk-yield methodologies on both test-day and fully daily-recorded lactations using metrics such as RMSE, Pearson correlation, MAPE, and MAE. Reference datasets are provided to allow organizations to benchmark their own calculations against alternative methodologies. In addition, downloadable PDF reports summarize the results through detailed statistics and scatterplots, both overall and stratified by parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5062</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5062"/>
		<updated>2026-07-22T17:50:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Gerke et al., 2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Gerke.xlsx here] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|thumb|636x636px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)|thumb|511x511px]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Jenko et al., 2008, 2010 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Jenko.xlsx here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method estimates daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY), and daily protein yield (DPY) in the alternate one-milking recording (T) scheme. Daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are then derived from the daily yield (DY) estimates. Utilizing this method allows us to remove the risk of underestimating high and overestimating low DY and contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate the DY from the partial yield (PY) and the estimated PY/DY ratio (y):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DY=PY&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;/y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the subscript i is either morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The value of y is calculated based on the milking interval in minutes (MI), estimated intercept (µ) and regression coefficients (b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;) for yield traits in a.m. or p.m. milking using the following equations for DMY and DPY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Model for milk yield and protein yield.&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and for DFY &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Model for fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept and regression coefficients can be either estimated from the data with records from both a.m. and p.m. milking or the estimates from Table 1 can be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Intercept and regression coefficients for calculation of daily yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily yield&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;µ&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005503000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005683000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005419000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005593000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY .&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0005093000&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0000005377&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0006705000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0000002744&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are calculated from the estimated DY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DFP=DFY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DPP=DPY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calulation example with method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Example of the calculations of daily yields from morning milking and evening milking is presented in tables 3 and 4. Data from the Delorenzo and Wiggans method is used in the calculations (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Data for morning and evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of recording&lt;br /&gt;
|06:15&lt;br /&gt;
|20:22&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|06:35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking interval (min)&lt;br /&gt;
|770&lt;br /&gt;
|827&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking results&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Calculation of partial yield (PY) and calculation of y value.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|y&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000 + 0,0005503000 x 770  = 0,531831&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000 + 0,0005683000 x 827 = 0,558404&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 3,45 = 0,41&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000 + 0,0005419000 x 770 = 0,529663&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 3,40 = 0,48&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000 + 0,0005593000 x 827 = 0,559181&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,12 = 0,49&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000 -0,0005093000 x 770 + 0,0000005377  x 770&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,516941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,00 = 0,56&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000 +0,0006705000 x 827 - 0,0000002744  x 827&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,524233&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Calculation of daily yield (DY, kg) and daily components (DY, %).&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|DY&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 0,531831 = 22,56356&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 0,531831 = 25,07145&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,41 / 0,529663 = 0,781629&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,781629 / 22,56356) x 100 = 3,46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,48 / 0,559181 = 0,851245&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,851245 / 25,07145) x 100 = 3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,49 / 0,516941 = 0,956395&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,956395 / 22,56356) x 100 = 4,24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,56 / 0,524233 = 1,068227&lt;br /&gt;
|(1,068227 / 25,07145) x 100 = 4,26&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== References ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Logar, B., Sadar, M., Ivanovič, B., Jeretina, J., Verbič, J., Podgoršek, P. 2008. Comparison of different models for estimating daily yields from a.m./p.m. milkings in Slovenian dairy scheme. Presented at the 36th ICAR Session, Niagara Falls, New York, United States, June 16-20, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Gorjanc G., Babnik, D. 2010. Evaluation of different approaches for the estimation of daily yield from single milk testing scheme in cattle, J. Dairy Res., 77 (2010), pp. 137-143; DOI: 10.1017/S0022029909990586&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3 - A unified Python implementation of standardized 305 day yield calculation methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR guideline is translated into an open-source Python package that can serve as a reference implementation for 305-day yield calculation. In addition to implementing the methods described in the original guideline (with the exception of the multi-trait method, which will be added in future work), the package incorporates 14 lactation-curve models, including traditional parametric models, Bayesian fitting approaches, and an AI-based model. The package also provides tools to derive biologically relevant lactation characteristics such as time to peak, peak yield, cumulative yield, and persistency. The package is publicly available through PyPI and can be installed directly using pip install lactationcurve (van Leerdam et al., 2026). Extensive documentation was developed alongside the package to improve transparency and reproducibility [https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html.]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through a companioning website (https://tools.bovi-analytics.org&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;/), users can upload milk-recording data in CSV format, fit and visualize the implemented lactation-curve models, and compare different cumulative milk-yield methodologies on both test-day and fully daily-recorded lactations using metrics such as RMSE, Pearson correlation, MAPE, and MAE. Reference datasets are provided to allow organizations to benchmark their own calculations against alternative methodologies. In addition, downloadable PDF reports summarize the results through detailed statistics and scatterplots, both overall and stratified by parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5061</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5061"/>
		<updated>2026-07-22T17:41:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Gerke et al., 2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Gerke.xlsx here] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|thumb|636x636px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)|thumb|511x511px]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Jenko et al., 2008, 2010 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Jenko.xlsx here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method estimates daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY), and daily protein yield (DPY) in the alternate one-milking recording (T) scheme. Daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are then derived from the daily yield (DY) estimates. Utilizing this method allows us to remove the risk of underestimating high and overestimating low DY and contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate the DY from the partial yield (PY) and the estimated PY/DY ratio (y):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DY=PY&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;/y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the subscript i is either morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The value of y is calculated based on the milking interval in minutes (MI), estimated intercept (µ) and regression coefficients (b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;) for yield traits in a.m. or p.m. milking using the following equations for DMY and DPY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Model for milk yield and protein yield.&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and for DFY &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Model for fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept and regression coefficients can be either estimated from the data with records from both a.m. and p.m. milking or the estimates from Table 1 can be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Intercept and regression coefficients for calculation of daily yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily yield&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;µ&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005503000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005683000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005419000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005593000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY .&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0005093000&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0000005377&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0006705000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0000002744&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are calculated from the estimated DY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DFP=DFY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DPP=DPY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calulation example with method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Example of the calculations of daily yields from morning milking and evening milking is presented in tables 3 and 4. Data from the Delorenzo and Wiggans method is used in the calculations (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Data for morning and evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of recording&lt;br /&gt;
|06:15&lt;br /&gt;
|20:22&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|06:35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking interval (min)&lt;br /&gt;
|770&lt;br /&gt;
|827&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking results&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Calculation of partial yield (PY) and calculation of y value.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|y&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000 + 0,0005503000 x 770  = 0,531831&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000 + 0,0005683000 x 827 = 0,558404&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 3,45 = 0,41&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000 + 0,0005419000 x 770 = 0,529663&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 3,40 = 0,48&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000 + 0,0005593000 x 827 = 0,559181&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,12 = 0,49&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000 -0,0005093000 x 770 + 0,0000005377  x 770&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,516941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,00 = 0,56&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000 +0,0006705000 x 827 - 0,0000002744  x 827&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,524233&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Calculation of daily yield (DY, kg) and daily components (DY, %).&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|DY&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 0,531831 = 22,56356&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 0,531831 = 25,07145&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,41 / 0,529663 = 0,781629&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,781629 / 22,56356) x 100 = 3,46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,48 / 0,559181 = 0,851245&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,851245 / 25,07145) x 100 = 3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,49 / 0,516941 = 0,956395&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,956395 / 22,56356) x 100 = 4,24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,56 / 0,524233 = 1,068227&lt;br /&gt;
|(1,068227 / 25,07145) x 100 = 4,26&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== References ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Logar, B., Sadar, M., Ivanovič, B., Jeretina, J., Verbič, J., Podgoršek, P. 2008. Comparison of different models for estimating daily yields from a.m./p.m. milkings in Slovenian dairy scheme. Presented at the 36th ICAR Session, Niagara Falls, New York, United States, June 16-20, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Gorjanc G., Babnik, D. 2010. Evaluation of different approaches for the estimation of daily yield from single milk testing scheme in cattle, J. Dairy Res., 77 (2010), pp. 137-143; DOI: 10.1017/S0022029909990586&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3 - A unified Python implementation of standardized 305 day yield calculation methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR guideline is translated into an open-source Python package that can serve as a reference implementation for 305-day yield calculation. In addition to implementing the methods described in the original guideline (with the exception of the multi-trait method, which will be added in future work), the package incorporates 14 lactation-curve models, including traditional parametric models, Bayesian fitting approaches, and an AI-based model. The package also provides tools to derive biologically relevant lactation characteristics such as time to peak, peak yield, cumulative yield, and persistency. The package is publicly available through PyPI and can be installed directly using pip install lactationcurve (van Leerdam et al., 2026). Extensive documentation was developed alongside the package to improve transparency and reproducibility [https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html.]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through a companioning website (https://tools.bovi-analytics.org&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;/), users can upload milk-recording data in CSV format, fit and visualize the implemented lactation-curve models, and compare different cumulative milk-yield methodologies on both test-day and fully daily-recorded lactations using metrics such as RMSE, Pearson correlation, MAPE, and MAE. Reference datasets are provided to allow organizations to benchmark their own calculations against alternative methodologies. In addition, downloadable PDF reports summarize the results through detailed statistics and scatterplots, both overall and stratified by parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5060</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5060"/>
		<updated>2026-07-22T17:36:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Gerke et al., 2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Gerke.xlsx here] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|thumb|636x636px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)|thumb|511x511px]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Jenko et al., 2008, 2010 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Jenko.xlsx here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method estimates daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY), and daily protein yield (DPY) in the alternate one-milking recording (T) scheme. Daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are then derived from the daily yield (DY) estimates. Utilizing this method allows us to remove the risk of underestimating high and overestimating low DY and contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate the DY from the partial yield (PY) and the estimated PY/DY ratio (y):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DY=PY&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;/y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the subscript i is either morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The value of y is calculated based on the milking interval in minutes (MI), estimated intercept (µ) and regression coefficients (b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;) for yield traits in a.m. or p.m. milking using the following equations for DMY and DPY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Model for milk yield and protein yield.&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and for DFY &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Model for fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept and regression coefficients can be either estimated from the data with records from both a.m. and p.m. milking or the estimates from Table 1 can be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Intercept and regression coefficients for calculation of daily yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily yield&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;µ&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005503000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005683000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005419000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005593000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY .&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0005093000&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0000005377&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0006705000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0000002744&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are calculated from the estimated DY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DFP=DFY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DPP=DPY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calulation example with method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Example of the calculations of daily yields from morning milking and evening milking is presented in tables 3 and 4. Data from the Delorenzo and Wiggans method is used in the calculations (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Data for morning and evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of recording&lt;br /&gt;
|06:15&lt;br /&gt;
|20:22&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|06:35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking interval (min)&lt;br /&gt;
|770&lt;br /&gt;
|827&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking results&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Calculation of partial yield (PY) and calculation of y value.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|y&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000 + 0,0005503000 x 770  = 0,531831&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000 + 0,0005683000 x 827 = 0,558404&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 3,45 = 0,41&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000 + 0,0005419000 x 770 = 0,529663&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 3,40 = 0,48&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000 + 0,0005593000 x 827 = 0,559181&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,12 = 0,49&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000 -0,0005093000 x 770 + 0,0000005377  x 770&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,516941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,00 = 0,56&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000 +0,0006705000 x 827 - 0,0000002744  x 827&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,524233&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Calculation of daily yield (DY, kg) and daily components (DY, %).&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|DY&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 0,531831 = 22,56356&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 0,531831 = 25,07145&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,41 / 0,529663 = 0,781629&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,781629 / 22,56356) x 100 = 3,46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,48 / 0,559181 = 0,851245&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,851245 / 25,07145) x 100 = 3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,49 / 0,516941 = 0,956395&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,956395 / 22,56356) x 100 = 4,24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,56 / 0,524233 = 1,068227&lt;br /&gt;
|(1,068227 / 25,07145) x 100 = 4,26&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== References ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Logar, B., Sadar, M., Ivanovič, B., Jeretina, J., Verbič, J., Podgoršek, P. 2008. Comparison of different models for estimating daily yields from a.m./p.m. milkings in Slovenian dairy scheme. Presented at the 36th ICAR Session, Niagara Falls, New York, United States, June 16-20, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Gorjanc G., Babnik, D. 2010. Evaluation of different approaches for the estimation of daily yield from single milk testing scheme in cattle, J. Dairy Res., 77 (2010), pp. 137-143; DOI: 10.1017/S0022029909990586&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3 - A unified Python implementation of standardized 305 day yield calculation methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR guideline is translated into an open-source Python package that can serve as a reference implementation for 305-day yield calculation. In addition to implementing the methods described in the original guideline (with the exception of the multi-trait method, which will be added in future work), the package incorporates 14 lactation-curve models, including traditional parametric models, Bayesian fitting approaches, and an AI-based model. The package also provides tools to derive biologically relevant lactation characteristics such as time to peak, peak yield, cumulative yield, and persistency. The package is publicly available through PyPI and can be installed directly using pip install lactationcurve (van Leerdam et al., 2026). Extensive documentation was developed alongside the package to improve transparency and reproducibility [https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html.]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through a companioning website (https://tools.bovi-analytics.org&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;/), users can upload milk-recording data in CSV format, fit and visualize the implemented lactation-curve models, and compare different cumulative milk-yield methodologies on both test-day and fully daily-recorded lactations using metrics such as RMSE, Pearson correlation, MAPE, and MAE. Reference datasets are provided to allow organizations to benchmark their own calculations against alternative methodologies. In addition, downloadable PDF reports summarize the results through detailed statistics and scatterplots, both overall and stratified by parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5059</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5059"/>
		<updated>2026-07-22T17:30:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Gerke et al., 2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Gerke.xlsx here] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|thumb|636x636px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)|thumb|511x511px]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Jenko et al., 2008, 2010 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Jenko.xlsx here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method estimates daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY), and daily protein yield (DPY) in the alternate one-milking recording (T) scheme. Daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are then derived from the daily yield (DY) estimates. Utilizing this method allows us to remove the risk of underestimating high and overestimating low DY and contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate the DY from the partial yield (PY) and the estimated PY/DY ratio (y):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DY=PY&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;/y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the subscript i is either morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The value of y is calculated based on the milking interval in minutes (MI), estimated intercept (µ) and regression coefficients (b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;) for yield traits in a.m. or p.m. milking using the following equations for DMY and DPY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Model for milk yield and protein yield.&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and for DFY &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Model for fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept and regression coefficients can be either estimated from the data with records from both a.m. and p.m. milking or the estimates from Table 1 can be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Intercept and regression coefficients for calculation of daily yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily yield&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;µ&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005503000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005683000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005419000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005593000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY .&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0005093000&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0000005377&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0006705000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0000002744&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are calculated from the estimated DY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DFP=DFY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DPP=DPY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calulation example with method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Example of the calculations of daily yields from morning milking and evening milking is presented in tables 3 and 4. Data from the Delorenzo and Wiggans method is used in the calculations (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Data for morning and evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of recording&lt;br /&gt;
|06:15&lt;br /&gt;
|20:22&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|06:35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking interval (min)&lt;br /&gt;
|770&lt;br /&gt;
|827&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking results&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Calculation of partial yield (PY) and calculation of y value.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|y&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000 + 0,0005503000 x 770  = 0,531831&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000 + 0,0005683000 x 827 = 0,558404&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 3,45 = 0,41&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000 + 0,0005419000 x 770 = 0,529663&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 3,40 = 0,48&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000 + 0,0005593000 x 827 = 0,559181&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,12 = 0,49&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000 -0,0005093000 x 770 + 0,0000005377  x 770&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,516941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,00 = 0,56&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000 +0,0006705000 x 827 - 0,0000002744  x 827&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,524233&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Calculation of daily yield (DY, kg) and daily components (DY, %).&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|DY&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 0,531831 = 22,56356&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 0,531831 = 25,07145&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,41 / 0,529663 = 0,781629&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,781629 / 22,56356) x 100 = 3,46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,48 / 0,559181 = 0,851245&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,851245 / 25,07145) x 100 = 3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,49 / 0,516941 = 0,956395&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,956395 / 22,56356) x 100 = 4,24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,56 / 0,524233 = 1,068227&lt;br /&gt;
|(1,068227 / 25,07145) x 100 = 4,26&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== References ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Logar, B., Sadar, M., Ivanovič, B., Jeretina, J., Verbič, J., Podgoršek, P. 2008. Comparison of different models for estimating daily yields from a.m./p.m. milkings in Slovenian dairy scheme. Presented at the 36th ICAR Session, Niagara Falls, New York, United States, June 16-20, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Gorjanc G., Babnik, D. 2010. Evaluation of different approaches for the estimation of daily yield from single milk testing scheme in cattle, J. Dairy Res., 77 (2010), pp. 137-143; DOI: 10.1017/S0022029909990586&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3 - A unified Python implementation of standardized 305 day yield calculation methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR guideline is translated into an open-source Python package that can serve as a reference implementation for 305-day yield calculation. In addition to implementing the methods described in the original guideline (with the exception of the multi-trait method, which will be added in future work), the package incorporates 14 lactation-curve models, including traditional parametric models, Bayesian fitting approaches, and an AI-based model. The package also provides tools to derive biologically relevant lactation characteristics such as time to peak, peak yield, cumulative yield, and persistency. The package is publicly available through PyPI and can be installed directly using pip install lactationcurve (van Leerdam et al., 2026). Extensive documentation was developed alongside the package to improve transparency and reproducibility [https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html.]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through a companioning website (https://tools.bovi-analytics.org&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;/), users can upload milk-recording data in CSV format, fit and visualize the implemented lactation-curve models, and compare different cumulative milk-yield methodologies on both test-day and fully daily-recorded lactations using metrics such as RMSE, Pearson correlation, MAPE, and MAE. Reference datasets are provided to allow organizations to benchmark their own calculations against alternative methodologies. In addition, downloadable PDF reports summarize the results through detailed statistics and scatterplots, both overall and stratified by parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5058</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5058"/>
		<updated>2026-07-22T17:24:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Gerke et al., 2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Gerke.xlsx here] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|thumb|636x636px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)|thumb|511x511px]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Jenko et al., 2008, 2010 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Jenko.xlsx here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method estimates daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY), and daily protein yield (DPY) in the alternate one-milking recording (T) scheme. Daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are then derived from the daily yield (DY) estimates. Utilizing this method allows us to remove the risk of underestimating high and overestimating low DY and contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate the DY from the partial yield (PY) and the estimated PY/DY ratio (y):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DY=PY&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;/y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the subscript i is either morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The value of y is calculated based on the milking interval in minutes (MI), estimated intercept (µ) and regression coefficients (b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;) for yield traits in a.m. or p.m. milking using the following equations for DMY and DPY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Model for milk yield and protein yield.&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and for DFY &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Model for fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept and regression coefficients can be either estimated from the data with records from both a.m. and p.m. milking or the estimates from Table 1 can be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Intercept and regression coefficients for calculation of daily yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily yield&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;µ&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005503000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005683000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005419000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005593000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY .&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0005093000&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0000005377&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0006705000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0000002744&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are calculated from the estimated DY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DFP=DFY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DPP=DPY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calulation example with method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Example of the calculations of daily yields from morning milking and evening milking is presented in tables 3 and 4. Data from the Delorenzo and Wiggans method is used in the calculations (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Data for morning and evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of recording&lt;br /&gt;
|06:15&lt;br /&gt;
|20:22&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|06:35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking interval (min)&lt;br /&gt;
|770&lt;br /&gt;
|827&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking results&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Calculation of partial yield (PY) and calculation of y value.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|y&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000 + 0,0005503000 x 770  = 0,531831&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000 + 0,0005683000 x 827 = 0,558404&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 3,45 = 0,41&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000 + 0,0005419000 x 770 = 0,529663&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 3,40 = 0,48&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000 + 0,0005593000 x 827 = 0,559181&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,12 = 0,49&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000 -0,0005093000 x 770 + 0,0000005377  x 770&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,516941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,00 = 0,56&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000 +0,0006705000 x 827 - 0,0000002744  x 827&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,524233&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Calculation of daily yield (DY, kg) and daily components (DY, %).&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|DY&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 0,531831 = 22,56356&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 0,531831 = 25,07145&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,41 / 0,529663 = 0,781629&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,781629 / 22,56356) x 100 = 3,46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,48 / 0,559181 = 0,851245&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,851245 / 25,07145) x 100 = 3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,49 / 0,516941 = 0,956395&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,956395 / 22,56356) x 100 = 4,24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,56 / 0,524233 = 1,068227&lt;br /&gt;
|(1,068227 / 25,07145) x 100 = 4,26&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== References ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Logar, B., Sadar, M., Ivanovič, B., Jeretina, J., Verbič, J., Podgoršek, P. 2008. Comparison of different models for estimating daily yields from a.m./p.m. milkings in Slovenian dairy scheme. Presented at the 36th ICAR Session, Niagara Falls, New York, United States, June 16-20, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Gorjanc G., Babnik, D. 2010. Evaluation of different approaches for the estimation of daily yield from single milk testing scheme in cattle, J. Dairy Res., 77 (2010), pp. 137-143; DOI: 10.1017/S0022029909990586&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3 - A unified Python implementation of standardized 305 day yield calculation methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR guideline is translated into an open-source Python package that can serve as a reference implementation for 305-day yield calculation. In addition to implementing the methods described in the original guideline (with the exception of the multi-trait method, which will be added in future work), the package incorporates 14 lactation-curve models, including traditional parametric models, Bayesian fitting approaches, and an AI-based model. The package also provides tools to derive biologically relevant lactation characteristics such as time to peak, peak yield, cumulative yield, and persistency. The package is publicly available through PyPI and can be installed directly using pip install lactationcurve (van Leerdam et al., 2026). Extensive documentation was developed alongside the package to improve transparency and reproducibility [https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html https://bovi-analytics.github.io/bovi/lactationcurve.html.]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Through a companioning website (https://tools.bovi-analytics.org&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;/), users can upload milk-recording data in CSV format, fit and visualize the implemented lactation-curve models, and compare different cumulative milk-yield methodologies on both test-day and fully daily-recorded lactations using metrics such as RMSE, Pearson correlation, MAPE, and MAE. Reference datasets are provided to allow organizations to benchmark their own calculations against alternative methodologies. In addition, downloadable PDF reports summarize the results through detailed statistics and scatterplots, both overall and stratified by parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5054</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5054"/>
		<updated>2026-06-29T14:02:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Calulation exsample with method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Gerke et al., 2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Gerke.xlsx here] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|thumb|636x636px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)|thumb|511x511px]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples by Jenko et al., 2008, 2010 ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simulation for such calculation is available [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/Calculation-daily-fat-percentage-from-single-sample-by-Jenko.xlsx here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method estimates daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY), and daily protein yield (DPY) in the alternate one-milking recording (T) scheme. Daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are then derived from the daily yield (DY) estimates. Utilizing this method allows us to remove the risk of underestimating high and overestimating low DY and contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate the DY from the partial yield (PY) and the estimated PY/DY ratio (y):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DY=PY&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;/y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the subscript i is either morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The value of y is calculated based on the milking interval in minutes (MI), estimated intercept (µ) and regression coefficients (b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;) for yield traits in a.m. or p.m. milking using the following equations for DMY and DPY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Model for milk yield and protein yield.&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and for DFY &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Model for fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept and regression coefficients can be either estimated from the data with records from both a.m. and p.m. milking or the estimates from Table 1 can be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Intercept and regression coefficients for calculation of daily yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily yield&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;µ&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005503000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005683000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005419000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005593000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY .&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0005093000&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0000005377&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0006705000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0000002744&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are calculated from the estimated DY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DFP=DFY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DPP=DPY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calulation example with method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Example of the calculations of daily yields from morning milking and evening milking is presented in tables 3 and 4. Data from the Delorenzo and Wiggans method is used in the calculations (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Data for morning and evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of recording&lt;br /&gt;
|06:15&lt;br /&gt;
|20:22&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|06:35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking interval (min)&lt;br /&gt;
|770&lt;br /&gt;
|827&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking results&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Calculation of partial yield (PY) and calculation of y value.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|y&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000 + 0,0005503000 x 770  = 0,531831&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000 + 0,0005683000 x 827 = 0,558404&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 3,45 = 0,41&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000 + 0,0005419000 x 770 = 0,529663&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 3,40 = 0,48&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000 + 0,0005593000 x 827 = 0,559181&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,12 = 0,49&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000 -0,0005093000 x 770 + 0,0000005377  x 770&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,516941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,00 = 0,56&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000 +0,0006705000 x 827 - 0,0000002744  x 827&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,524233&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Calculation of daily yield (DY, kg) and daily components (DY, %).&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|DY&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 0,531831 = 22,56356&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 0,531831 = 25,07145&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,41 / 0,529663 = 0,781629&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,781629 / 22,56356) x 100 = 3,46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,48 / 0,559181 = 0,851245&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,851245 / 25,07145) x 100 = 3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,49 / 0,516941 = 0,956395&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,956395 / 22,56356) x 100 = 4,24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,56 / 0,524233 = 1,068227&lt;br /&gt;
|(1,068227 / 25,07145) x 100 = 4,26&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== References ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Logar, B., Sadar, M., Ivanovič, B., Jeretina, J., Verbič, J., Podgoršek, P. 2008. Comparison of different models for estimating daily yields from a.m./p.m. milkings in Slovenian dairy scheme. Presented at the 36th ICAR Session, Niagara Falls, New York, United States, June 16-20, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Gorjanc G., Babnik, D. 2010. Evaluation of different approaches for the estimation of daily yield from single milk testing scheme in cattle, J. Dairy Res., 77 (2010), pp. 137-143; DOI: 10.1017/S0022029909990586&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5053</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5053"/>
		<updated>2026-06-29T13:39:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Reference */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples (Gerke et al., 2025) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|thumb|636x636px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)|thumb|511x511px]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) ===&lt;br /&gt;
This method estimates daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY), and daily protein yield (DPY) in the alternate one-milking recording (T) scheme. Daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are then derived from the daily yield (DY) estimates. Utilizing this method allows us to remove the risk of underestimating high and overestimating low DY and contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate the DY from the partial yield (PY) and the estimated PY/DY ratio (y):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DY=PY&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;/y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the subscript i is either morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The value of y is calculated based on the milking interval in minutes (MI), estimated intercept (µ) and regression coefficients (b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;) for yield traits in a.m. or p.m. milking using the following equations for DMY and DPY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Model for milk yield and protein yield.&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and for DFY &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Model for fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i =&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; µ + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; × MI&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept and regression coefficients can be either estimated from the data with records from both a.m. and p.m. milking or the estimates from Table 1 can be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Intercept and regression coefficients for calculation of daily yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily yield&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;µ&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005503000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005683000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005419000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0005593000&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY .&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0005093000&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0000005377&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0006705000&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,0000002744&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, daily fat percentage (DFP) and daily protein percentage (DPP) are calculated from the estimated DY:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DFP=DFY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DPP=DPY/DMY × 100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calulation exsample with method of Jenko et al. (2008, 2010) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Example of the calculations of daily yields from morning milking and evening milking is presented in tables 3 and 4. Data from the Delorenzo and Wiggans method is used in the calculations (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Data for morning and evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of recording&lt;br /&gt;
|06:15&lt;br /&gt;
|20:22&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|06:35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking interval (min)&lt;br /&gt;
|770&lt;br /&gt;
|827&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milking results&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Calculation of partial yield (PY) and calculation of y value.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|PY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|y&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1081000000 + 0,0005503000 x 770  = 0,531831&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0884200000 + 0,0005683000 x 827 = 0,558404&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 3,45 = 0,41&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1124000000 + 0,0005419000 x 770 = 0,529663&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 3,40 = 0,48&lt;br /&gt;
|0,0966400000 + 0,0005593000 x 827 = 0,559181&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,12 = 0,49&lt;br /&gt;
|0,5903000000 -0,0005093000 x 770 + 0,0000005377  x 770&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,516941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 4,00 = 0,56&lt;br /&gt;
|0,1574000000 +0,0006705000 x 827 - 0,0000002744  x 827&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 0,524233&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Calculation of daily yield (DY, kg) and daily components (DY, %).&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|Trait&lt;br /&gt;
|DY&lt;br /&gt;
|Milking&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|DY (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk&lt;br /&gt;
|DMY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|12,00 / 0,531831 = 22,56356&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|14,00 / 0,531831 = 25,07145&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein&lt;br /&gt;
|DPY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,41 / 0,529663 = 0,781629&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,781629 / 22,56356) x 100 = 3,46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,48 / 0,559181 = 0,851245&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,851245 / 25,07145) x 100 = 3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat&lt;br /&gt;
|DFY&lt;br /&gt;
|a.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,49 / 0,516941 = 0,956395&lt;br /&gt;
|(0,956395 / 22,56356) x 100 = 4,24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|p.m.&lt;br /&gt;
|0,56 / 0,524233 = 1,068227&lt;br /&gt;
|(1,068227 / 25,07145) x 100 = 4,26&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== References ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Logar, B., Sadar, M., Ivanovič, B., Jeretina, J., Verbič, J., Podgoršek, P. 2008. Comparison of different models for estimating daily yields from a.m./p.m. milkings in Slovenian dairy scheme. Presented at the 36th ICAR Session, Niagara Falls, New York, United States, June 16-20, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
* Jenko, J., Perpar, T., Gorjanc G., Babnik, D. 2010. Evaluation of different approaches for the estimation of daily yield from single milk testing scheme in cattle, J. Dairy Res., 77 (2010), pp. 137-143; DOI: 10.1017/S0022029909990586&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5052</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5052"/>
		<updated>2026-06-29T12:07:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples (Gerke et al., 2025) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|thumb|636x636px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)|thumb|511x511px]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5051</id>
		<title>Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording&amp;diff=5051"/>
		<updated>2026-06-29T12:01:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= Overview =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Information about milk production traits is very important for managing and breeding dairy herds. The milk recording process starts with the collection of animal identification, a calving date of milking cows, the amount of milk given and the date with time or time frame of a day. A milk sample may be taken. The obtained milk sample is analysed for milk constituents. The results of the analysis plus the data about milk yield and time of milking are stored in a database. Subsequently a number of parameters, cumulative yields and indices are calculated and stored in the database and, finally, reported to the farmer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This Section 2 of the ICAR Guidelines focuses on the milk recording process for dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 gives a pictorial summary of the main elements of this guideline. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, this section of the ICAR Guidelines covers the milk recording process from the enrolment of a herd for milk recording, through to the delivery of information which a herd owner can use to assist in a range of decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Scope of Section 2 - Dairy cattle milk recording..png|thumb|Figure 1. Scope of Section 2 -Dairy cattle milk recording.|center|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not covered in this section are:&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of milk recording devices. Please consult [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for ICAR approval of ID devices. Please consult [[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for preparation of milk samples and for quality assurance of milk analysis. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Section 12]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standards and guidelines for in-line milk analysis on the farm. Please consult [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] for this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Enrolment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment of new herds in the recording process should involve an agreement between the farmer and the recording organisation regarding technical and financial questions such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General information about the recording programme itself, i.e.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Herd and cow identification.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scope of recorded data, including database setup as required by the user.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Scheduling recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Data capture and processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Recording methods and intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Milk measuring and meters.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Sampling and sample transport.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Reports (outcomes) and supporting decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Definition of supervision scheme and other quality assurance and plausibility checking steps.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fee structure and invoicing.&lt;br /&gt;
# Approval of technicians by milk recording organisations (MROs) so as to give them free access to farms for all recording and supervision actions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In cases where the owner of the recorded cows or his employees carry out the recording itself, it is up to the organisation to decide upon, and provide for, any necessary training.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standard and Guidelines for Milk Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
These standards and guidelines for milk recording are valid for all milking systems, including AMS where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
====General Standards and Guidelines for milk recording====&lt;br /&gt;
#ICAR-approved (electronic) milk meters and sampling devices must be used on the recording day (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_11_%E2%80%93_Testing,_Approval_and_Checking_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices#Procedure_1:_Procedure_for_Application_for_Testing_of_Measuring,_Recording_and_Sampling_Devices_or_Sensor_Systems Procedure 1 of Section 11 - Guidelines for Testing, Approval and Checking of Milk Recording Devices]). The list of approved milk meters, jars and AMS and automatic milk sampler/tray combinations sampling devices can be found on the [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/icar-certifications-for-milk-meters-for-cow-sheep-goats/ ICAR web page].&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weights are recorded for each milking of the recording period. The measurement may be done using any of the ICAR approved recording devices, or by weighing. The minimum accuracy of the measurement is 0.2 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
#Where milk constituents are analysed, the equipment used must meet ICAR standards for accuracy. Please consult [[Section 12 – Milk Analysis|Sections 12]] and [[Section 13 – On-farm Milk Analysis|Section 13]] of the Guidelines for details.&lt;br /&gt;
#The accuracy of the equipment used for milk recording and sampling must be checked by an agency approved by the member organisations, on a regular and systematic basis using methods approved by ICAR. The list of methods is given in [[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices#Procedure 6: Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices|Procedure 6 of Section 11]] - Evaluation of Installation and Routine Calibration Procedures for Recording and Sampling Devices.&lt;br /&gt;
#All analyses of the constituents of a milk sample must be carried out on the same milk sample.&lt;br /&gt;
#These samples should ideally represent the 24-hour milking period.&lt;br /&gt;
#If milk samples do not represent a 24-hour period, the results of milk analyses must be corrected to a 24-hour period by a method approved by ICAR (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]).&lt;br /&gt;
#In cases where the duration of recording deviates from 24 hours, the results must be converted into 24-hour yields. Only approved 24-hour yield calculation methods can be used. The appropriate methodology is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields|Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]]&lt;br /&gt;
#As date of recording, we recommend to use the date on which the last sample was taken. As alternative, the date of the first sample can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Calculation methods&lt;br /&gt;
##The quantities of milk and milk constituents shall be calculated according to one of the methods outlined in this section of the ICAR Guidelines (see [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields]).&lt;br /&gt;
##Member organisations should keep the ICAR Secretariat informed about the calculation methods being used by the records processing operations in their organisation or country and shall be responsible for ensuring that the records are corrected and calculated as specified in this section of the ICAR Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
====Standards and Guidelines for milk recording using AMS====&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers systems where milk weights, milk quality or other traits of the cows are monitored constantly and automatically. This can be done in both automatic and manually operated milking systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements:&lt;br /&gt;
*Animal identification is automatic and reliable. Farm transponders can also be used for automatic identification if they are linked to the cow’s official identification in farm software.&lt;br /&gt;
*All individual milkings must be recorded from all AMSs in the farm and transmitted to the recording database for calculation, interrupted milkings included.&lt;br /&gt;
*For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters must contain the following: 1) Cow ID, 2) Milking time stamp, 3) Milk weight and 4) Sampling stamp to mark the milking where the sample comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
*All milkings within the recording period may be sampled, and in this case the samples should be analysed separately. Alternatively, a one-milking sample can be taken for each cow, followed by fat correction calculation.&lt;br /&gt;
*All cows in milk on the recording day have to be sampled. The sampling device must remain in operation until all cows are sampled. When the number of available sampling devices is smaller than the number of AMS units, sampling may need to be prolonged beyond one day to allow complete sampling of all cows. In that case, the sampling device has to be moved between AMS units.&lt;br /&gt;
*During sampling, the automatic sampler must be monitored to make sure there are vials left for the next cows.&lt;br /&gt;
*24-hour yield calculations must be carried out by a MRO, independently of the AMS manufacturer. This is done in order to guarantee harmonisation of calculation methods between the different brands of equipment and software.&lt;br /&gt;
*Data of all milkings over a given time period must be collected for the 24-hour milk yield calculation. A 96-hour data collection period is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations:&lt;br /&gt;
#Ideally, data of all milkings should be collected and used to compute lactation yield.&lt;br /&gt;
#Description of formats to exchange data recorded by an AMS can be requested from the manufacturer or the ICAR ADE data exchange standard for milking data can be used.&lt;br /&gt;
#In the case of milk recording method B (see [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Recording|chapter 1.4 &amp;quot;Recording]]&amp;quot;) with AMS, the milk recording organization should make sure that the farmer knows how to load or transfer data.  &lt;br /&gt;
#Data can be extracted by: 1) manual operation by MRO Technician’s or Farmer (file extraction), 2) automated system and data transfer through an Application Programming Interface (API), 3) another data transfer and exchange system.&lt;br /&gt;
#Raw milk recording data from the AMS must be easily accessible for MRO data processing.&lt;br /&gt;
#For official milk recording purposes, the data file obtained from electronic milk meters may also contain the following: 1) Vial ID (this is obligatory with M sampling scheme), 2) Milking duration, 3) Milking speed, 4) Incomplete milking in automatic milking systems and 5) Other relevant data measured or reported by the equipment.&lt;br /&gt;
#Individual milkings should be tested for milk secretion rate in order to detect interrupted and unrecorded milkings, which in turn have an effect on the calculated 24-hour yields. If there is an interrupted milking or a milking that follows an interrupted milking at the beginning of the recording period, these two milkings must be excluded from the calculations. During the recording period they can be excluded but do not need to be.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to individually sample all milkings within the 24-hour recording period for 24-hour fat content calculation due to the high variability of milking frequency and milk fat content. In cases where sampling all milkings is not possible, please consult Chapter 2 of [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 - Computing 24-hour Yields]   (for approved correction calculation methods).&lt;br /&gt;
#It is recommended to sample only milkings with a preceding interval longer than 4 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
====Authorisation to record====&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that professional milk recording technicians are trained and certified before they carry out recordings on their own. Ideally, such training includes a period of supervised work with a certified technician. Where such a certification system is in place, it is not allowed to record without an authorisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also recommended that frequent training is given to milk recording technicians on new technologies and equipment, safety instructions and data quality issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In B and C recording, farmers or their employees doing the practical recording need to be capable of operating the recording equipment correctly (e.g. milk meters, data capture tools) and are familiar with recording techniques.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to have a conformation test from a certified recording agency and that frequent training take place.&lt;br /&gt;
====Cows to be recorded====&lt;br /&gt;
In a recorded herd, all milk-producing cows must be recorded. If a herd is divided into groups, all animals in the group have to be recorded on the same recording scheme. If different recording schemes are practiced on the farm all cows must be recorded according to the standards for recording and sampling intervals in table 3.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptable reasons for missing data are discussed below, in 5.5. Missing results and/or abnormal intervals are reported [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Missing results|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Identification (ID)===&lt;br /&gt;
====Herd ID====&lt;br /&gt;
Each herd in milk recording must be allocated a unique permanent identification number.&lt;br /&gt;
====Animal ID====&lt;br /&gt;
An official milk recording system must be based on a clearly identifiable and unique animal ID. It is recommended that one identification scheme for the whole country is used. Animal identification must also be in accordance with national and international regulation (e.g. EU member countries with EU legislation - 1760/2000 for cattle), and with relevant parts of currently valid ICAR Guidelines. The animal must be marked with an ICAR approved identification device or system. If the ID of imported animals is changed, the connection to the original ID must be maintained. Management numbers for cows can be used aside the official ID.&lt;br /&gt;
====Identification of the sample vial====&lt;br /&gt;
The sample, the milk weight and the cow ID must be linked at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vials can be identified according to:&lt;br /&gt;
#Vial placement in the sampling unit.&lt;br /&gt;
#Cow or sample ID written on the vials.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with printed cow ID.&lt;br /&gt;
#Barcoded vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
#RFID vial with cow ID registered at the milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample identification without electronic equipment=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to their placement in the sampling unit. Additionally, sample or cow numbers can be written on the vials with a waterproof marker. If this marking is not done, there must be a sure and efficient way to identify sample No. 1 (e.g. different colour) and the sequence of other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each sampling unit must be connected to a list of samples where cow ID is given for each sample. Each transportation box also has to carry the relevant herd ID’s and, preferably, the sampling dates.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Barcoded vials=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the barcode on the vial label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains cow and/or herd ID, no electronic equipment is needed at the recording. The samples can be sent to the laboratory without accompanying sample lists or herd ID markings on the box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the label contains a random sample ID number, the cow ID must be connected with it on the farm. This is done with a barcode reader and computer programmes making the connection possible.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Vials with RFID=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are identified according to the RFID chip in the vial. This system requires the use of RFID readers and specific computer programmes creating a file where the cow and vial ID’s are connected.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Automatic sampling systems=====&lt;br /&gt;
In automatic milking systems (AMS), ICAR approved automatic samplers have to be used. Sample identification in these systems can be based on vial placement, barcode or RFID. The file with corresponding cow ID is in the management programme of the milking system. Data transfer is carried out with specific software and via a specific interface from the AMS to the MRO.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample ID in the laboratory=====&lt;br /&gt;
For impartiality and better quality, it is recommended that the samples are identified without cow ID and sent to the laboratory anonymously and the analysis results are merged afterwards in the data processing centre.&lt;br /&gt;
====Connection of the sample to milking and 24 h yield====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample and milk weight from the same milking=====&lt;br /&gt;
The ideal situation is that the sample and milk weight represent the same milking.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two=====&lt;br /&gt;
A corrected analysis is routinely attached to the 24-hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking, milk weight from two or more, corrected by intervals=====&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, a 24-hour-yield is also combined with a one-milking sample, but the 24‑hour yield is obtained by correcting the recorded milkings according to the length of the preceding milking intervals. For example, if a cow has produced 20 kg milk in two milkings and the preceding intervals total 20 hours, her 24-hour yield is calculated as 20 kg * (24 h/20 h) = 24 kg. A corrected analysis is attached to this 24‑hour yield.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Sample from one milking or day, milk weight from several days=====&lt;br /&gt;
With electronic milk meters, it is possible to use the milk production from several days. This gives better accuracy of milk yield estimation; the highest accuracy with uncorrected milk weights is reached using a 4-day average. The problem is that the sample results become disconnected from the milk yield and a loss in fat and protein yield accuracy will occur. Ideally, fat and protein production should be connected to the recording day even in AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case, there are three options to connect samples to the 24-hour yield:&lt;br /&gt;
#Milk weight is estimated from a longer measurement period but for fat and protein yield estimation only the milk yield on sampling day is used.&lt;br /&gt;
#Information only from the recording day for constituents in milk and milk yield estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
#Combination of multiple day milk yield with constituents from sampling. See ICAR procedures for using data from more than one day (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters , 2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis data are merged with milk weights in the laboratory or data processing centre and the date of the analysis must be known.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Definition of milking speed and box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Introduction =====&lt;br /&gt;
Automated Milking Systems (AMS) do measure many traits. The definition of these traits might be different per brand of AMS. Data of these traits is often used by e.g. milk recording organisations, herdbooks or management software providers. When organisations store these data in their databases and use for certain services, it is important to know how these traits are defined. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These definitions could be used by milk recording organisations etc. to take into account differences between traits measured by different brands of AMS. These definitions could also be used by manufacturers of AMS to take into account for product development, to get more alignment in trait definitions between different brands of AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aim of this document is to propose a harmonized definition of some traits measured by AMS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At this stage, the traits milking speed and box time are taken into account. Traits related to teat coordinates are described in Section 5 (Conformatoin Recording) of the ICAR guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Average milking speed ====&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = AverageMilkingSpeed (gr/min) = {TotalMilkYield / TotalMilkingTime} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milk yield (kg)   = Sum of all quarter level milk yields (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
* Total milking time      = Last Take-off time (of any teat) - Begin of milk flow (of any teat)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude any pre-treatment time from milking time.&lt;br /&gt;
* Provide take-off settings (threshold in gr/min at take-off, user-defined or default) and settings for the beginning of the measurement period, as milking time will be influenced by take-off settings and by the definition of the beginning of the milk flow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Don&#039;t report milking sessions with kick-off´s, interrupted and re-attached milkings because milking time will vary for these milkings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Box time ====&lt;br /&gt;
Different types of box time:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Milking&lt;br /&gt;
* Feed-only &lt;br /&gt;
* Pass-through&lt;br /&gt;
* Selection&lt;br /&gt;
* Training &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definition = {End box time - Begin box time} (HH:MM:SS)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Begin box time = datetime of recognition of animal&lt;br /&gt;
* End box time = datetime when cow has exited the box (which might be different from opening of the gate), best to detect when cow has actually left the box&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional data is needed to understand the status and completeness of the milking visit (Wethal and Heringstad, 2019). Registered issues during the milking are e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ff: at least 1 teat cup kicked off&lt;br /&gt;
* TeatNotFound: unable to find at least 1 of the teats for milking&lt;br /&gt;
* IncompleteMilking/FailedMilking: Minimum of 1 teat was registered as incompletely milked. &lt;br /&gt;
* The expected milk yield for a milking session depends on previous milkings. Settings like yield less than 80% of expectation for a teat, the milking session would be recorded as having an incompletely milked teat.&lt;br /&gt;
* Manual interaction like teat manually attached or milking finished manually.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for manufacturers:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make the codes available that express if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. &lt;br /&gt;
* Uniform names and definitions for interrupted, incomplete or failed milkings as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendations for data users:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the availability of a code that expresses if a milking was successful and the cause if the milking was not successful. The meaning of the code can be used to consider if the box time record has to be used for the intended purpose or not. &lt;br /&gt;
* To check if there is any extra box time due to feeding concentrates, e.g. through user specific settings such as &#039;PriorityFeeding&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Traits to be recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In official milk recording, the following data have to be recorded, wherever available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Identification of each cow in the herd, even if they remain in the herd for a very short time.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth date, sex, breed and parents of each animal when known.&lt;br /&gt;
# All services and embryo flushings and transfers: date, recipient, sire, dam of the embryo.&lt;br /&gt;
# All animal deaths and movements between farms and owners.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording dates and locations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yields for each cow and recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to record also the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Protein content in milk for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk somatic cell count for each cow and sampling date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Other results obtained from milk analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking duration and milking speed where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milking times during recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording methods and respective symbols used in records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information about cow during the rearing period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording method ===&lt;br /&gt;
The recording method for the herd consists of using five different symbols for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Responsibility for the practical recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling interval (if different from the above).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of milkings per day (especially any deviation from 2x milking).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The symbols in Table 2 should be used:&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Symbols for milk recording schemes.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Responsibility for recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling scheme&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | A&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | P&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | B&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | E&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | C&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Z&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | T&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | M&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | etc.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As an example: Recording method is CP36, 2x means that this is a recording where records/ samples are taken partly by the owner (farmer), and partly by a technician from the MRO, where the recording frequency is every 3 weeks, where the sampling frequency is every 6 weeks, and where the number of milkings per day is 2. If a national nomenclature system is used, it should be possible to transfer this system into ICAR nomenclature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference milk recording method is by a representative of the recording organisation, measuring and sampling every four weeks, with proportional sampling and two milkings per day (AP44, 2x).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording other than by the reference method must be indicated using the appropriate symbols.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a limit is set for changing the recording method e.g. so that normally it is only possible to change the method twice per year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the next sections the symbols are explained:&lt;br /&gt;
====Responsibility for the recording====&lt;br /&gt;
This symbol indicates who is responsible for measuring the milk yields and taking samples in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
#Representative of the MRO (Method A; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Farmer or his/her representative (Method B; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
#Mixed responsibility (Method C; see &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_01_%E2%80%93_General_Rules#Performance_recording_of_milk Section 1 Chapter 3 - Performance recording of milk]&#039;&#039;&#039;) &lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for sampling schemes====&lt;br /&gt;
=====Proportional sampling (P)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The sampled amount corresponds to the milk yield of each milking. This is achieved by the use of a pipette in equal number of pipetting at each milking or of a specially designed tool which ensures proportional sampling to create one mixed sample. This is the default sampling scheme with no necessary correction to the analysis results, all other schemes must be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Equal measure sampling (E)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken at each milking during the recording day. The amount of the sample is measured to be equal at each milking and mixed into one sample. The analysis results for fat should be corrected if one of the milking intervals is shorter than 10 or longer than 14 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
=====Multiple sampling (M)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken at more than one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. Samples from different milkings are not mixed but they are kept in distinct vials so that each cow has at least two samples. The analysis results must be corrected to correspond to the 24-hour fat and protein yields. For example: a cow is milked 3x during 24 hours and 2 or 3 separate samples are taken, kept and analysed in different vials. This is the gold standard for AMS. It produces the most accurate results but is more expensive.&lt;br /&gt;
=====One-milking sampling with milk weights from more than one milking (Z)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples are taken from one milking during the recording day while milk weights are taken at each milking or over several days. The analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Alternated one-milking recording (T)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, alternating between morning and evening milkings. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Constant one-milking recording (C)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Samples and milk weights are taken during one milking, constantly during morning or evening milking. The milk weights and analysis results must be corrected using one of the methods described in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield.] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====In-line analysis recording (I)=====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk is not sampled but its constituents are continuously analysed by a stationary analyser.&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR Standards for recording and sampling intervals====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 2. Standards for recording and sampling intervals.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording or sampling interval (weeks)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Minimum number of recordings or samplings per year&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval between recordings or samplings (days)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reference method&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |37&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |32&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |46&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |38&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |53&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |50&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Daily&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |310&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ICAR standards for number of milkings per day====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 3. Symbols for number of milkings per day.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number of milkings per day&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Symbol&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Once per day milking&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Two milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Three milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Four milkings&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 4 x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Continuous milking (e.g. AMS)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | R x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Regular milkings not at the same times on each day (e.g. 10 milkings per week)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.4x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Shown as the average number of milkings per day.&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Animals that are both milked and suckled. (Number of times milked to prefix the S)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | S x&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where a herd is dry for a period of the year, the minimum number of recordings should be adjusted proportionately to the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum number of herd recordings should be at least 85% of the normal number of recordings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Missing results and/or abnormal intervals ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{anchor|Missing_results}}A recorded 24-hour yield is the best estimate of the yield and the constituents of the milk, weighed, sampled and recorded within 24 hours on the day of recording.&lt;br /&gt;
#When herds are normally milked at intervals such that the recording day is other than 24 hours, the yields shall be adjusted to a 24-hour interval using the following procedure (or other procedures approved by the ICAR):&lt;br /&gt;
#*Divide 24 by the interval, then multiply by the yield. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 25 hour interval  (24/25) x 35 kg = 33.6 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#**For a 20 hour interval (24/20)  x 35 kg = 42.0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
#A recording is a set of daily test values for a given animal on a given day of recording, one or some or all of them can be missed (missing values)&lt;br /&gt;
#Missing values can be due to:&lt;br /&gt;
#*Out of range.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Sickness.&lt;br /&gt;
#*Disaster.&lt;br /&gt;
#*No sample analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
#The number of the official and complete (milk, fat and protein) recordings in the lactation or other accumulated yield should be reported.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Permitted range of the daily recorded values is given in Table 5. Outside of these ranges, the daily recorded&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; value will be considered as a missing value.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Permitted range of the daily recorded values.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Main Dairy Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 7.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | High Fat&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cattle Breeds&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 3.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 99.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 2.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 12.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 9.0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Note&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;: High fat breeds have breed average higher than 5.0 for fat %&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;en&amp;quot; dir=&amp;quot;ltr&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The true daily recorded values collected from animals labelled by the farmer as sick, injured or under treatment must be used in the computation of the lactation record unless the milk yield is less than 50% of the previous milk yield or less than 60% of the predicted yield. In such a case, the whole set of daily recorded values may be considered as missing.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimates of the missing values of a daily recording can be computed by using interpolation procedures or by more sophisticated procedures approved by ICAR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samples ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Representative sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
The milk sample has to represent the complete milking linked to it. This is achieved by mixing the milk thoroughly or pouring it into another vessel right before sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sampling scheme P requires using a pipette for making the sample proportional between different milkings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With sampling scheme E, it is advisable to use a measuring cup to make sure the sample parts actually are equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immediately after sampling, the vials have to be preserved, capped, shaken and marked. Samples should be stored cool and dark. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Transport ===&lt;br /&gt;
Samples should be transported for analysis to a laboratory as soon as possible after sampling. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The samples need to be packed for transport and handled during transport in a manner that guarantees that sample IDs are not compromised or mixed. It is also recommended to protect the packages from external interference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The packing material must be clean and disposable or easy to clean.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During transportation, it is recommended that the temperature of the samples stays below +10°C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Database ==&lt;br /&gt;
Storing the recorded data in a milk recording database is an indispensable part of the recording. It is recommended to use the quickest possible means to store the data in the database in order to ensure up-to-date breeding values and management applications. Where computerised data capture is possible, it should not take more than five days after the recording to have the complete recording data set in the database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The application of the Guidelines in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2 - Computing 24-hour Yield], together with other parts of the Guidelines, ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines on storage of data collected by the milk recording process are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# For every recording, cow identification (ID), 24-hour milk yield or individual milk yields with a minimum of 0.2 kg (or the equivalent thereof) milk accuracy and recording date have to be stored. &lt;br /&gt;
# Where possible, it is advisable to store each milking separately. The data stored can include milk yield, time and date of milking, and milking scheme. &lt;br /&gt;
# Analysed results of the milk sample are stored, namely: sample ID, fat content (or percentage), sample status, sample type. Optional data can be stored on protein and/or lactose content, somatic cell count and additional analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
# Analysis results can be linked to one or more milkings of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# In case of storage or performance problems it might be necessary to remove old data of individual cow milkings from the database. &lt;br /&gt;
# Recording day information is the yield over 24 hours and should at least be kept in the database for the current lactation and the previous lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
# If recording day information is changed after batch processing it should be marked with a user-ID and time stamp. &lt;br /&gt;
# Yields are stored in kg or lbs or, in the case of fat and protein contents, in percent units.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The necessary additional information about how the results have been obtained include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Who did the recording (certified technician, farmer etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd and/or cow milking frequency.&lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were measured. &lt;br /&gt;
# How many milkings were sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling scheme when sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Daily yield calculation method used.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording and sampling intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
# It is recommended to store the Recording method ICAR code on event level, which is for every single cow milking stored in the database. The recording method for an accumulated yield is derived from the recording method of the underlying single milkings, in which case the recording method with the highest frequency is used to calculate the accumulated yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks for recording data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farm (herd) ID: identified by a unique key.&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal ID: has to be unique in database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Format of animal ID: compliant to international standards of identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording date: less than or equal to today, greater than last recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk yield: stored with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
# 24 hour milk yield within range ( Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Fat and protein content: e.g. within a range of +/- 3 standard deviation of population average (Table 5).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: greater than birthday of cow (e.g. greater than birthday of cow + 20 months).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving date: less than or equal to today.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sample analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section of the ICAR Guidelines examines how observations are performed on farms and how data are collected, analysed and reported back to farmers. It forms an integral part with other sections of the ICAR Guidelines. It ensures that samples are analysed to the relevant degree of accuracy for the purposes of milk recording, breeding value prediction and other areas of usage. ICAR members operate in a range of situations, ranging from places with almost fully automated recording systems to areas with no roads and electricity. Therefore, the guidelines only demand standards that can be followed, irrespective of production situations and recommend more advanced options, where possible or required. Under the guidelines some practices might not be permitted while other practices are tolerated but not recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yield calculations ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section covers 24-hour yields and accumulated yields for milk, fat, protein and somatic cells. It also describes the procedure for acceptance of new methods not previously mentioned in the guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic requirements for all calculation methods are that rounding shall only take place at the last step of the computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lactation period ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Commencement of the lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, is considered to commence is:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow calves (calving date), or&lt;br /&gt;
# In the absence of a calving date, the best estimate of the day that the cow commenced milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A (valid) calving is defined as a parturition taking place:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# After the mid-point of the gestation period if a service has been recorded, or,&lt;br /&gt;
# After at least 75% of the normal gestation period has elapsed since the previous calving recorded if no service event has been recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any parturition falling outside the above definition shall be recorded as an abortion and shall not start a new lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For cows of dairy breeds the normal gestation length shall be deemed to be 280 days unless more specific breed information is available for use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording is done on the calving date or within the first 4 days after calving, the milk yield and constituents at the first recording should not form part of the official lactation record, especially for automated milking systems (AMS) with multiple recorded days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Completion of lactation period ====&lt;br /&gt;
The day that the lactation period, as recorded by the member or according to the ICAR Guidelines, has been completed is or:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The day that the cow ceases to give milk (goes dry) or &lt;br /&gt;
# The day the cow gives less than 3.0 kg/day or 1.0 kg/milking in a recording (unless recorded sick) or &lt;br /&gt;
# When it is common practice not to record the dry-off date, the day of the midpoint between the last recording with the cow in milk and the first recording day with the animal dry may be assumed to be the dry-off date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lactation period ends on whichever date above occurs first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows may be recorded as absent or sick on the recording day, without the lactation period being defined as terminated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Production period ===&lt;br /&gt;
In the case where yield records are calculated on the basis of a period of production, usually a year, the record should be expressed as a ‘production period record‘ (symbol PP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The production period begins the day after the end of the previous production period and ends as defined by the length (in days) of the production period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
For any ICAR method the interval between two consecutive recordings must routinely fulfil the value for the acceptable range on the herd level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the first recording occurs within 14 days from calving, then no adjustment is required to the first recorded value when computing the accumulated record. If the first recording occurs 15 to 95 days from calving, then an adjustment procedure may be applied.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the 305&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; day of a lactation falls before the last recording, the interpolation method should be used also for the last period to compute the yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating 24 hour yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in &#039;&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Procedure-1-Computing-24-Hour-Yield.pdf Procedure 1 of Section 2]&#039;&#039;&#039;. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.     Methods for calculating daily yields from AM/PM milkings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Delorenzo and Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A., and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(86)80678-6/pdf J Dairy Sci 69; 2386]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Liu et al. (2019). Please note that in 2022 the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K. Kuwan. 2000. Approaches to Estimating Daily Yield from Single Milk Testing Schemes and Use of a.m.-p.m. Records in Test-Day Model Genetic Evaluation in Dairy Cattle. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75161-7/pdf J. Dairy Sci. 83:2672-2682].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has been updated to the method of Liu et al. (2019). We recommend to organisations that currently have implemented the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; to update to method of Liu et al. (2019). &lt;br /&gt;
# Method of Kyntäjä et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1.     Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. [https://www.icar.org/Documents/technical_series/ICAR-Technical-Series-no-25-Virtual-Meeting/Kyntaja.pdf ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.    Methods to estimate 24h yield from Automatic Milking Systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Lazenby et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on 1 day (Bouloc et al., 2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot and Peeters, 2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P.J.B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(02)74124-6/pdf J Dairy Sci. 2002 Mar;85(3):682-8].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Sampling period (Hand et al., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D.F. 2004. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate 24 Hour Percent Fat and Protein. Presented at 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR session, Sousse, Tunisia, June, 2004. Proceedings of the 34&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ICAR Meeting EAAP Publication No. 113:219-224&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bouloc et al., 2004)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.    Standard methods to estimate 24h yield from electronic milk meters:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour milk yield &lt;br /&gt;
# Using data on more than one day (Hand et al., 2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72240-8 J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723-1726]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Standard methods for calculating accumulated yields ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR approved methods are presented in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_2_%E2%80%93_Computing_of_Accumulated_Lactation_Yield Procedure 2 of Section 2]. They include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F.D., V.H. Lyton, and O.G. Wall, Jr . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(68)86943-7 J. Dairy Sci. 51:170].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(87)90049-2 Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Best prediction (VanRaden, 1997)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76268-4 J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer and Jamrozik, 1996)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R. and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. [https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76578-5 J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Procedure to approve new methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# All parties interested in seeking approval for any new accumulated yield calculation method will notify the ICAR Secretariat and provide a description of the proposed method. &lt;br /&gt;
# These parties will provide a detailed report including statistical details, scientific references and other relevant data to the ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group.&lt;br /&gt;
# The ICAR Dairy Cattle Milk Recording Working Group will then consider the proposal and recommend that it be conditionally approved, approved or rejected. &lt;br /&gt;
# The final steps will consist of approval by the General Assembly and publication in the guidelines. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reporting ==&lt;br /&gt;
This subsection covers reports, data files, statistics and calculated key figures provided to farmers for breeding and management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that farmers are given reports after each recording and at the end of the recording year or another longer recording period. These reports should contain data on both cow and herd level. In bigger herds, it is also advisable to present results by management groups or otherwise chosen cow groups within the herd. The reporting may be done on paper, through web pages and/or in the form of data files or electronic reports.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where data files are distributed or direct access given to the results in the database, care must be taken that data ownership is clearly defined. This also includes defining who has access to data and how this access can be authorised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR members are advised to prepare annual statistics in a reasonable timeframe after closing the recording year. The minimum data requirements are what is needed for the ICAR [https://my.icar.org/stats/list Dairy Cattle Yearly Enquiry on-line database].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;Table 5. Examples of key figures for herd to be used by farmers and other users.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef; text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Key figure&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left |&#039;&#039;&#039;Explanation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | 12-month rolling average yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the 365 (366) days preceding the recording divided by the average number of cows for the same period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished 305-day lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average 305-day yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within 305-day lactations during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows on a 305-day lactation within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average annual yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the recording year divided by the average number of cows for the same recording year.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average calving interval&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average preceding intervals of all calvings second and more during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average fat, protein or lactose contents in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total fat, protein and lactose yields divided by the total milk yield, usually expressed with two decimals.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced within lactations of any length finished during the reporting period divided with the number of finished lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average lactation yield within a period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total milk, fat and protein produced during the reporting period divided with the average number of cows in milk within the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Average number of cows in the herd (or group) on a given day during the reporting period. Usually expressed with one decimal.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Average somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The average of all individual cow somatic cell counts weighted for individual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Daily milk, fat and protein yields&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | 1) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows, or 2) Total daily milk, fat and protein yields divided by number of cows in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Energy Corrected Milk (ECM)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Calculated according to a national standard. &lt;br /&gt;
Example from the Nordic countries:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + milk yield, kg * 0.7832)/3.14  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = (fat yield, kg * 38.3 + protein yield, kg * 24.2 + lactose yield * 16.54 + milk yield, kg * 0.0207)/3.14.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From solids expressed as %:  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + 783.2)/3140]* milk yield, kg &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or, if lactose has been analysed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ECM = [(fat content, % * 383 + protein content, % * 242 + lactose content, % * 165.4 + 20.7)/3140]* milk yield, kg.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Number of lactations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | Total number of finished lactations in the herd (or group) during the reporting period.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Reporting period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; | The period presented in the given report. The most usual options are: one day, one recording interval, lactation, rolling 365 days, recording or calendar year, and the cow’s lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decisions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a result of the recording process and reports prepared on the basis of its results, decisions can be made on one or more of the following: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Short term impact: day-to-day management decisions taken on farms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about bulk milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Feeding decisions - daily diet based on group or individual performance.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pasture management decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Grouping decisions - placing cows in different management or feeding groups.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling decisions - decisions on the sale or slaughter of cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
# Mating decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions regarding programmes of certification for milk and milk products.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on data flow from MRO’s to farms and vice versa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Medium-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Farmers’ decisions based on advisory services, veterinarians, independent experts and other services.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions about production planning on farms (herd development).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Long-term impact ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Breeding programme and selection decisions - breeding partners informed by genetic evaluation ([[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 9)]] based on milk recording results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decisions based on herd book and breeder association activities and deciding on business actions related to breeding animals, i.e. in some countries animal recording data are required for international trade with breeding animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategic decisions ===&lt;br /&gt;
# Research programmes concerning management, recording and breeding.&lt;br /&gt;
# Political decisions about possible subsidies in dairy cattle breeding at the governmental level and implementing measurements according to agriculture policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quality control ==&lt;br /&gt;
This Section together with other parts of the Guidelines ensure that data from particular animals are linked with the relevant phenotypes, genomic information and environments to the required accuracy and using the best methods. There is a distinction, however, between the accuracy required for official milk recording and breeding value estimations and other relevant official results and data used for managerial purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is a recommended practice to compare milk recording data with dairy deliveries and bulk tank milk contents. This can be done on the recording day or over a longer period of time. The calculation is done as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg /Total milk produced, kg. This comparison is used where there is a reliable estimate of the farm use of milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Quick comparison ratio = Total recorded milk yield, kg/ Total milk delivered, kg. This comparison is used where farm use of milk is not estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
# Content comparison = Recorded average fat / Bulk tank average fat&lt;br /&gt;
# Comparison ratio for fat = Total recorded fat yield, kg/ Total fat produced, kg&lt;br /&gt;
# Total recorded milk yield, kg = Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk delivered, kg = Total milk delivered, litres * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total milk produced, kg = (Total milk delivered, litres + Milk used or discarded on the farm, litres) * milk density kg/litre&lt;br /&gt;
# Total fat produced, kg = Total milk produced, kg x (Bulk tank fat percent/100)&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded average fat = Ʃ [Individual milk yield kg x (Individual fat percent/100)]/Ʃ (Individual milk yield, kg)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended acceptable range for comparison ratios is 0.95 - 1.05, and for quick comparison ratios 0.90 - 1.00, with due regard to herd size.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== One day bulk tank data comparison ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared on the recording day. Comparing the contents is routinely possible where every delivery is sampled or by taking a bulk tank sample (see point [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Bulk_tank_data_comparison 1.10] above for how the comparison is done.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank data comparison over a longer period ===&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yields and fat yields or contents are compared over a longer period of time, e.g. 4 months or 12 months. This option requires a routine to obtain the applicable data from the dairies or milk buyers. Farm use of milk may be taken into account where applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bulk tank sample ===&lt;br /&gt;
Bulk tank samples can be used to verify the milk contents analysis obtained in milk recording. A sample is taken from a well-mixed bulk tank on the recording day. It must represent the milk of the whole 24-hour period. Bulk tank fat and protein contents are then compared to the weighted averages of the fat and protein percent obtained from milk recording. Normally, the difference between the values should not be more than 5%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervised or repeated recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Supervised recording is a tool designed to verify that individual cow records are reliable. It is based on repeating the herd recording as soon as possible after the original recording, and the obtained results are compared with the original recording. It is obligatory for ICAR Certificate of Quality (CoQ) holders to practice regular supervision, irrespective of recording methods used.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that the supervised recording will follow immediately after the original recording, but for a good reason it can be postponed for up to 7 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer and any other staff doing the original recording must not know that a supervised recording will follow. The technician who performs the supervised recording should not be the same person who did the original recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually supervised recording is done by recording the whole herd again, using the same sampling scheme and recording method (or a reference method) as in the previous recording. When herd size exceeds 200 cows, it is also allowed to do a supervised recording to selected, or randomised groups of animals in the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing the herds for supervised recording may be random or based on preselection. Traits for this preselection may include high yield, great increase in yield, presence of bull dams in the herd, and general suspicions about the correctness of herd results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits compared in supervised recording must include milk and fat. Comparing protein is also recommended. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supervision - example of comparison calculations ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk, fat and protein yields per cow are calculated for both the original and the supervised milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual cow records where results between supervised recording and the original recording differ outside the norms might be excused where a good explanation can be given for exclusion (illness, heat, missed milking) &lt;br /&gt;
# Deviations (%) are calculated for each cow and yield constituent according to the formula: deviation = (supervised yield/unsupervised yield)*100-100&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd averages of the absolute values for each yield constituent are calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs within 2 days of the original recording, the acceptable difference in herd averages are 7% for milk and protein and 9% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
# If the supervised recording occurs between 3 and 7 days after the original recording, the acceptable difference of the aforementioned herd averages are 9% for milk and protein and 12% for fat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The limits mentioned in these examples are typically applied by some of the member organisations, and are not meant to be understood as exact norms. Such norms should be laid down by each member organisation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evaluation of recording data ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that data quality is evaluated for each herd recording day. When such an evaluation is applied, the following features of the data have to be included:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Person responsible for the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# ICAR approval and calibration status of the recording equipment if owned by the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd recordings per time period and/or recording interval.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of herd samplings per time period and/or sampling interval. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following features are also recommended to be included if possible:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from dairy deliveries.&lt;br /&gt;
# Deviation of milk and fat yields from previous or predicted yields.&lt;br /&gt;
# Standard deviation of individual cow records.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of recorded and/or sampled milkings within the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of cows missed or not recorded in the recording.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Procedures =&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 1: Computing 24-hour Yields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yield for milk yield and fat percentage from a single milking ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Delorenzo &amp;amp; Wiggans (1986)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Delorenzo, M.A. and G.R.Wiggans. 1986. Factors for estimating daily yield of milk, fat, and protein from a single milking for herds milked twice a day. J. Dairy Sci. 69: 2386-2394.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Daily milk (DMY) and fat yield (DFY) estimates are based on measured yield and milking frequency. An adjustment factor accounts for differences in the average milking interval (expressed in decimal hours) between the preceding milking and the measured milking, and the time of day of the measured milking (started in a.m. or p.m.). For 2X milking, an additional adjustment is applied to milk yield for the interaction between milking interval and stage of lactation, with mid lactation (158 DIM) set to zero. Milking interval does not affect protein and solids non fat (SNF) percentages and so the percentages for the sampled milking are used for test-day estimates. Protein yield is calculated from the measured percentage and the adjusted milk yield.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prediction of DMY and DFY from single milking on morning or evening in herds milked twice a day requires factors, that are the reciprocal of the proportion of total yield expected from single milkings in relation to the milking interval.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We propose to derive these coefficients (intercept, slope, etc.) for each country separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of milking interval =====&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval is the interval between milking time for the observed milking and the milking time preceding the observed milking. The milking interval is divided into 15-minutes classes. Factors for milk and fat yields may be calculated to each class using Equation 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 1. Factors for milk and fat yields.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation 1.png|none|thumb|397x397px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Adjustment of lactation stage =====&lt;br /&gt;
Because the lactation stage of the cow has an influence on the effect of different milking intervals on milk production a second adjustment is made for every interval class through a covariate of days in milk as addition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Covariate x (days in milk - 158)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Estimating sample day yields =====&lt;br /&gt;
Formulas for prediction sample day yields and percentages in herds with two milkings are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 2. Equation for predicting 24-hour milk yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2.png|none|thumb|428x428px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 3. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation3.png|none|thumb|431x431px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 4. Equation for predicting 24-hour fat yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation4.png|none|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 5. Equation for predicting 24-hour protein yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation5.png|none|thumb|316x316px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation examples =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Practical Application ======&lt;br /&gt;
Two sets of factors are available for estimating DMY from a single milking, each for morning or evening milking sampling. The factors are calculated from the formula as described above and given in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Factor of milk yield and covariate for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of milking interval in hours (minutes in decimal)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Morning milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Evening milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Covariate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.594&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.534&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00485&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.465&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00710&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.477&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.411&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00716&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.423&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00511&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.359&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00726&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.370&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00473&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.310&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00458&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.321&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00337&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.262&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00399&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.273&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00214&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.217&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00294&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.227&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.173&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00223&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.183&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.131&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.140&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.091&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.099&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.052&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.060&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.014&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.022&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |2.000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.978&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.986&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.943&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.951&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.910&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.917&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.877&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.884&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.846&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.852&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00190&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.815&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |0.00000&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.822&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.786&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00167&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.792&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00308&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.757&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00258&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.763&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00339&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.730&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00347&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.736&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00509&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.703&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00363&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.709&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00471&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.677&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00332&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.652&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00316&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.628&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00235&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |1.683&lt;br /&gt;
| align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; |-0.00454&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For estimating daily fat percentage there is only one table independent of morning or evening sampling – refer to Table 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Factor of fat percentage for herds milked twice a day.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Length of  milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;interval in hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;factor)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt; 9.00&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.00-9.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.927&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.25-9.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.50-9.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.941&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9.75-9.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.948&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.00-10.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.955&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.25-10.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.961&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.50-10.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.968&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10.75-10.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.974&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.00-11.24&lt;br /&gt;
|0.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.25-11.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.50-11.74&lt;br /&gt;
|0.992&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|11.75-11.99&lt;br /&gt;
|0.997&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.000&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.01-12.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.003&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.25-12.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.50-12.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|12.75-12.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.00-13.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.023&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.25-13.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.50-13.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.033&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|13.75-13.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.00-14.24&lt;br /&gt;
|1.042&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.25-14.49&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.50-14.74&lt;br /&gt;
|1.050&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14.75-14.99&lt;br /&gt;
|1.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|≥ 15.00&lt;br /&gt;
|1.058&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milking-interval factors are calculated using Equation 1, where the intercept and slope are as in Table 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Slope and intercept for milk yield and fat yield.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started in p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0654&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0634&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0363&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1965&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1939&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The milking interval has no significant influence on protein percentage. Therefore, the protein percentage of the sampled milking is used as the daily protein percentage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from morning milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Data for a cow from morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|(Morning  milking)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|(Expressed  as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk-kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,12&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,45&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein-percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Factors for morning milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for milk yield  from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate is&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Example calculations for morning milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.877  x 12,0 kg + 0 x (120 - 158) = 22,5 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,12 = 4,19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0419 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,5  kg x 0,0345 = 0,78 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of daily yields from evening milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Data for a cow from evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording:&lt;br /&gt;
|16:48&lt;br /&gt;
|Evening  milking&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Start of preceding milking:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:35&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|13  hours 47 minutes&lt;br /&gt;
|Expressed  as decimal 13.78&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|14,0&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4,00&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3,40&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|120&lt;br /&gt;
|Days  in milk&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Factors for evening milking example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  milk yield from Table 1 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The covariate  is&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0,00339&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for  fat percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Example calculations for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.763  x 14,0 kg - 0,00339 x (120 - 158) = 24,8 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.037  x 4,00 = 4,15&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0415 = 1,03 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|24,8  kg x 0,0340 = 0,84 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Alternate recording of components and milk yield at both milkings ======&lt;br /&gt;
For this plan only the sample-day fat yield has to be calculated with regard to milking interval. The milk yield is the sum of evening and morning milk results.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Example data for a cow from both milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|17:25&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at evening:&lt;br /&gt;
|10:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg (only milking-yield)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Begin of recording morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|6:15&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk results at morning:&lt;br /&gt;
|12:00&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk  kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4:20&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3:50&lt;br /&gt;
|Protein  percentage&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Factor for fat percentage.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Length of milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
|12  hours 50 minutes (expressed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as decimal 12.83)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The factor for fat  percentage from Table 2 is&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Example calculation of daily yields.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day milk yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|10,0  kg + 12,0 kg = 22,0 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat  percentage:&lt;br /&gt;
|1.018  x 4,20 = 4,28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day fat yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0428 = 0,94 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The sample-day protein  yield:&lt;br /&gt;
|22,0  kg x 0,0350 = 0,77 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 3X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
For 3X herds, a single milking or two consecutive milkings may be weighed. The sample may be collected at one or both of these milkings. Stage of lactation × milking interval adjustments are not used for greater than 2× milking. These AM/PM factors for estimating daily yields in 3X herds should not be confused with factors that adjust 3X records to a 2X basis. Milking-interval factors are calculated using the same formula with the intercept and slope as in Table 13.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. Slope and intercept factors for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |  &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 2 a.m. and 9:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 10 a.m. and 5:59 p.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;For  measured milking started between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 a.m.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Milk yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.077&lt;br /&gt;
|0.068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Fat yield&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.186&lt;br /&gt;
|0.182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0186&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
When two milkings are included for sampling, the intercepts and intervals for both milkings are included in determining a factor for calculated estimated milk yield that is applied to the total yield from both milkings as in Equation 6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 6. Milking interval factor for 3X milking.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6.png|none|thumb|536x536px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Milk and fat percent factors are calculated separately based on the number of milkings weighed or sampled.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation for 4X - 6X Milking ======&lt;br /&gt;
The intercept terms for calculating 3X factors (0.077, 0.068, and 0.066) are multiplied by the factor [3 / (milkings per day)] for use in calculating factors for milking frequencies greater than 3X.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Method of Liu et al. (2019) ====&lt;br /&gt;
A multiple regression method (MRM) is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield (DMY), daily fat yield (DFY) and daily protein yield (DPY) based on partial yields from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking. Fat percentage (DFP) or protein percentage (DPP) on a 24-hour daily basis are then derived using the estimated 24-hour daily yields. The MRM can be used as a reference method for estimating daily yields and component percentages. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method of Liu et al. (2019) is an updated version of the method of Liu et al. (2000). The model is only used for farms with 2 time milkings during 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following formula is used to estimate DMY, DFY, DPY based on partial yields (PMY, PFY,PPY) from either morning (AM) or evening (PM) milking:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 7. Model for predicting 24-hour yield.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = a + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; * x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated 24-hour daily yield (DMY, DFY or DPY);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
x&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is AM or PM partial daily yield on a test day (PMY, PFY, or PPY).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of parity effect with 2 levels: first and higher parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of length of preceding milking interval with 8 levels for AM milking: &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;lt; 740 minutes, &amp;lt; 760 minutes, &amp;lt; 780 minutes, &amp;lt; 800 minutes, &amp;lt; 820 minutes, &amp;lt; 840 minutes, &amp;gt;= 840 minutes and 8 levels for PM milking: &amp;lt; 600 minutes, &amp;lt; 620 minutes, &amp;lt; 640 minutes, &amp;lt; 660 minutes, &amp;lt; 680 minutes, &amp;lt; 700 minutes, &amp;lt; 720 minutes, &amp;gt;= 720 minutes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subscript &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; represents class of lactation stage with 7 classes: &amp;lt; 60 days, &amp;lt; 120 days, &amp;lt; 180 days, &amp;lt; 240 days, &amp;lt; 300 days, &amp;lt; 360 days, &amp;gt;= 360 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the estimated intercept for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the estimated slope for the combination of parity class (i), milking interval class (j) and lactation stage class (k) for either AM or PM milking for the given trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The factors for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;a&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ijk&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Appendix_1_-_Adjustment_factors_to_calculate_24-hour_yields_using_the_Liu_method Appendix 1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For a given yield trait a total number of 112 formulae are to be estimated for calculating 24-hour daily yield based on partial yield from either AM or PM milking. Component percentage for fat (DFP) and protein (DPP), on a 24-hour basis is calculated by dividing estimated fat or protein yield by estimated daily milk yield:[[File:Imagefinal.png|center|thumb|339x339px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example with method of Liu et al. (2019) =====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Data from an evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk  testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding  milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking  time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation  number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  content (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Index&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1132&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|01.01.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |25,0&lt;br /&gt;
|3,98&lt;br /&gt;
|3,33&lt;br /&gt;
|0,995&lt;br /&gt;
|0,8325&lt;br /&gt;
|1232&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1131&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|27.03.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |33,1&lt;br /&gt;
|4,03&lt;br /&gt;
|3,36&lt;br /&gt;
|1,3339&lt;br /&gt;
|1,1122&lt;br /&gt;
|1231&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039; Index is marked in the Appendix table.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Calculation of 24-hour daily yield and components for evening milking.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Date of milk testing:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |23.04.2020&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Milking time :(AM/PM):&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |16:29 (PM)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |Length of preceding milking interval:&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |629 minutes, previous milking time 06:00 (AM)&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow  ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DMY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;DPY (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DFP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DPP (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,47396&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98268&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,0401 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,0&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,2135&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,68050&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8855975&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,10471&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,99092&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7621509&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8855975 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7621509 / 53,04096*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,32&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|B&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;4,15080&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+25,0* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98520&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 53,7808 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;53,8&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,3635&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,995&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,47515&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,8312743&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,13952&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+0,8325* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,97074&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 1,7801611&lt;br /&gt;
|1,8312743 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,41&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|1,7801611 / 53,7808*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,31&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|C&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,80244&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,02183&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 69,72501 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;69,7&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,17663&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,72438&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4767805&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,11078&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,96422&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,2953855&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4767805 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,55&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,2953855 / 69,725013*100 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,29&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|D&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;3,85525&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+33,1 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;2,00429&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 70,19725 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;70,2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,27991&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,3339 * &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,62403&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,4462036&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;u&amp;gt;0,12863&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;+1,1122* &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;1,98973&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; = 2,3416077&lt;br /&gt;
|2,4462036 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;3,48&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2,3416077 / 70,7197249*100 ≈ &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;3,34&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039; that intercepts and slopes of the applied regression formulae are underscored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Fat correction for equal measure sampling =====&lt;br /&gt;
With Equal measure sampling, it is advisable to use Equation 8 (or the like) to correct fat contents:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 8. Fat correction for equal measure sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fat, % = Analysed fat, % + 0.69 – 1.3 x (morning milk/ 24-hour milk)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relation of morning milk to 24-hour milk is to be calculated to at least four decimals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1         Method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage ====&lt;br /&gt;
This method can be applied to calculate 24-hour correction factors for fat percentage, in case the milk recording is based on two milkings, with at least one known milk yield and one sample. A 24-hour recording day is assumed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conventional way to calculate correction factors is based on a data set where all milkings have been recorded and analysed separately. This approach requires a lot of effort and extra analysis, and is not cheap to organise. Organisations that have access to a large number of records may be able to use those data to calculate correction factors even if they have no extra analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Requirements for the data set:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The data set has to be large enough. Every single factor needs to be based on at least 10,000 or, even better, 100,000 observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Each individual data set must contain at least one preceding milking interval, milk weight, and analysed sample. If it contains more milk weights, intervals etc. that is even better. It is also good to include breed, lactation number, days in milk and other data that may have an effect on the factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Calculation example of the method of Kyntäjä &amp;amp; Nokka (2021)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyntäjä, J. and S. Nokka. 2021. A new approach to predicting the fat content in 2x milking. Proceedings of the 44th ICAR Annual Conference. ICAR Technical Series no. 25: 171-175.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== The accumulated data set ======&lt;br /&gt;
Since 2003, Finland had accumulated a data set of 7.5 million recordings with data on the time of the sampled and preceding milking as reported by the farmer, the lab analysis results, and the 24-hour milk yield. Grouped according to the preceding interval, the analysed fat content gives a nice sigmoid curve with the highest fat content found after a 540 to 630 minutes’ interval (9 to 10.5 hours) and the lowest at 810 to 930 minutes (13.5 to 15.5 hours).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Average analysed milk fat percentage by preceding interval class, 2003 – 2020.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Sampling  (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number  of samples&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Median  interval in the class&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat content analysed  (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|93,577&lt;br /&gt;
|495&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|19,523&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|4.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|111,268&lt;br /&gt;
|555&lt;br /&gt;
|4.79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|253,807&lt;br /&gt;
|585&lt;br /&gt;
|4.83&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|1,461,587&lt;br /&gt;
|615&lt;br /&gt;
|4.75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|919,968&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|1,168,683&lt;br /&gt;
|675&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|223,877&lt;br /&gt;
|705&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|517,447&lt;br /&gt;
|735&lt;br /&gt;
|4.28&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|212,428&lt;br /&gt;
|765&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|924,014&lt;br /&gt;
|795&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|698,463&lt;br /&gt;
|825&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|1,104,778&lt;br /&gt;
|855&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|154,561&lt;br /&gt;
|885&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|77,024&lt;br /&gt;
|915&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|26,977&lt;br /&gt;
|945&lt;br /&gt;
|4.13&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The results were also divided into subgroups according to lactation number, phase of lactation, and breed. The effect of the preceding milk interval on milk fat seems to be bigger with older cows and in the beginning of lactation. It was also bigger with Ayrshire cows as compared with Holsteins. At this point, however, the decision was made not to take these factors into account when calculating new correction factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====== Calculation of new factors ======&lt;br /&gt;
The results above were turned into a simple set of correction factors, dependent solely on the preceding interval. In order to do this, two assumptions were made:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# A 24-hour recording day was assumed. This way, we can deduce the second milking interval from the one we know and mirror the fat percent for that milking.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk secretion rate was assumed to be constant around the 24-hour period. This allows us to deduce the share of the 24-hour yield produced at each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These assumptions allow us to create the new correction factors by mirroring the milk yield and milk fat content in the milking whose actual data we have not got. This way, we get the following formula:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 9. Correction factor.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation9.png|none|thumb|545x545px]] &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Calculation of the mirrored milking and the correction factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval before  sampling (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the sampled milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Share of  24-hour milk in the sampled milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mirrored  interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average fat in  the mirrored milking (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Calculated  24-hour average fat(%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Correction  factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|0.34&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.989&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|0.907&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|0.41&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|0.906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|0.43&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|0.919&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|0.45&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.936&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|0.953&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|0.984&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|720-749&lt;br /&gt;
|4.29&lt;br /&gt;
|0.51&lt;br /&gt;
|690-719&lt;br /&gt;
|4.43&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.016&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|750-779&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|0.53&lt;br /&gt;
|660-689&lt;br /&gt;
|4.56&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|780-809&lt;br /&gt;
|4.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.55&lt;br /&gt;
|630-659&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66&lt;br /&gt;
|4.36&lt;br /&gt;
|1.059&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|810-839&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09&lt;br /&gt;
|0.57&lt;br /&gt;
|600-629&lt;br /&gt;
|4.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.37&lt;br /&gt;
|1.070&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|840-869&lt;br /&gt;
|4.07&lt;br /&gt;
|0.59&lt;br /&gt;
|570-599&lt;br /&gt;
|4.84&lt;br /&gt;
|4.38&lt;br /&gt;
|1.076&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|870-899&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|0.61&lt;br /&gt;
|540-569&lt;br /&gt;
|4.82&lt;br /&gt;
|4.35&lt;br /&gt;
|1.073&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|900-929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.08&lt;br /&gt;
|0.64&lt;br /&gt;
|510-539&lt;br /&gt;
|4.77&lt;br /&gt;
|4.33&lt;br /&gt;
|1.062&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;gt;929&lt;br /&gt;
|4.14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;510&lt;br /&gt;
|4.21&lt;br /&gt;
|4.16&lt;br /&gt;
|1.006&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields in Automatic Milking Systems ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General remarks about calculation of 24-hour milk yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
It is characteristic for AMS systems that individual cows set their own milking rhythm, thus making it largely irrelevant to use the traditional model of measuring milk yields and sampling at all milkings in the herd during the recording day. In order to determine how much an individual cow’s real 24-hour milk, fat and protein yield is, more complex calculations are required, especially with milk fat that varies considerably from milking to milking. For protein content and cell counts, no correction is needed for a one-milking sample.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic idea with calculating a 24-hour milk yield from AMS data is that milk yields per milking are converted into milk yield per time unit (minute or hour) during the preceding interval. This milk yield per time unit is then converted into milk yield in 24 hours. In order to do this, the data set must also contain time stamps for each milking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How many milkings or how long a measurement period is used for creating 24-hour yields depends on the milk recording organisation. The fewer milkings are used the more random variance there will be in the individual cow milk yields. The absolute minimum is two milkings with preceding intervals, while a measuring period of 96 hours is recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sampled milking must always be inside the milk yield measurement period. For the calculation of fat and protein yields, it is recommended to use only those milk yields that are from the same period or day. With Z sampling, the 24-hour fat and protein yields may be calculated based on a shorter measurement period than what is used for calculating the 24-hour milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data of several days (Lazenby &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazenby, D., E. Bohlsen, K. J. Hand, D. F. Kelton, F. Miglior and K. D. Lissemore. 2002. Methods to estimate 24-hour yields for milk, fat and protein in robotic milking herds. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Automatic Milking Systems (AMS). The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding milkings or a number of preceding days. If number of milkings is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of current milking together with the 12 most recent milkings back in time. The optimal estimate is the maximum value of the difference curve at which the correlation with the ‘true’ 24-hour milk yield is greatest and the variance across milkings is minimized. If number of days is used, the optimal estimate of the milking rate is obtained using an average of all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (4 most recent days). In Table 18 the percent of maximum difference for various number of milkings and days is reported. The optimal estimate is independent from stage of lactation and parity.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Percent maximum for different number of days and milkings.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent Max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Current milking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;+ most recent milkings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Percent max.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|49.38&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|97.85&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|77.26&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|99.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|92.34&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|99.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|98.91&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|99.81&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|98.50&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|99.40&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table19.png|center|thumb|911x911px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation using most recent milkings (1+12) is computed using Equation 10.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 10. 24-hour yield estimation using 12 previous milkings from AMS.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation10.png|none|thumb|527x527px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and, 24-hour yield estimation using all milkings occurred in the last 96 hours (most recent 4 days), all milking in the last 4 days are included is computed using Equation 11.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 11. 24 hours yield estimation using milkings from the last 96 hours from AMS&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation11.png|none|thumb|534x534px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between milk weights and contents may arise if contents are recorded on one day only. Moreover, some cows may begin or finish their lactation during the period of recording. In this case the computation of milk yield must be adapted. The number of data that need to be validated is higher (for instance, contents have short interval between two milkings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of milk yield using data on 1 day (Bouloc &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bouloc, N., J. Delacroix and V. Dervishi. 2002. Milk recording and automatic milking systems: features and simplification possibilities of recording procedures. Presented at the 33th biennial Session of ICAR, Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26-31, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
When the number of milkings is reduced to milkings obtained during one day only, the accuracy of the estimation of the true performance is the same as classical milk recording methods with the same interval between two test days. For instance, Milk Yield estimated from all the milkings recorded during 24 hours, and with an interval between two test days of four weeks has the same accuracy as A4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation of fat and protein yield (Galesloot &amp;amp; Peeters, 2000&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of fat and protein percent must be based on milk weights at time of sampling. The 24-hour protein percentage can be predicted by the protein percentage of the sample without adjustment. However, the 24-hour fat percentage is more difficult to predict, as levels of fat percent are inversely proportional to the amount of milk yield. It is important then to have a close connection between time of samples and actual milk yields.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method is a multiple linear regression model for estimating 24-hour fat percent and yields from one-sampled milking during the AMS sampling period. Six different statistical models were tested. This method takes into account fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milking interval and milk weight of the previous milking (simple model). Another model, based on six different classification of variables (Ca - Cf) such as, time of sampled milking, interval preceding the sampled milking, ratio of fat to protein percent, parity, lactation stage, can be applied (complex model).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Simple model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk (n-1) + e&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;= Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e = Residual effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Complex model =====&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat%&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Fat%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Prot%(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Int(n-1) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;5i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n) + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;* Milk(n-1) + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Intercept, b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; to b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;6i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Regression coefficients, Int = Milking interval, (n) = Milking sampled, (n-1) = Previous milking, e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = Residual effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i             = subclass of classification for class variables C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; for x = a, b, c, d, e, f&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Day Time of sampled milking (h) 0-5.59, 6.00-11.59, 12.00-17.59, 18.00-23.59&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;b&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Parity 1, 2, ≥ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Lactation stage 1-99, 100-199, ≥200&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;          = Interval preceding the sampled milking n (min) 0-360, 361-510, 511-700, 701-1440 and Fat%n/Prot%n ratio of fat to protein % of the sampled milking 0-1.10, 1.10-1.25, 1.25-1.40, &amp;gt;1.40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best prediction of 24-hour fat percent and 24-hour fat yields from this method, includes fat percent, protein percent, milk weight and milking interval of the sampled milking, milk weight and milking interval of the preceding milking and the interaction between milking interval, the ratio of fat to protein percent of the sampled milking (complex model corresponding to C&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;f&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; classification).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Peeters and Galesloot method has been updated by Roelofs et al. (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. J. B. Galesloot. 2002. Estimating Daily Fat Yield from a Single Milking on Test Day for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J Dairy Sci. 85:682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The Roelofs method is described in [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording#Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme|Appendix 2]] of this Section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
N.B. This method has been developed by CRV. CRV has available a set of parameters, estimated with this method. For more information about costs and advice on application of this method, please contact CRV. ICAR has no benefit from the application of this method or any other method described in these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation example of 24-hour fat and protein yields with sampling scheme M ====&lt;br /&gt;
With this method, all milkings in a 24-hour recording period must be sampled. The obtained separate analysis results are then used to compute a 24-hour yield of milk solids, and a weighted average of their content. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Individual milkings (last 96 hours) and recording day contents: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY/MM/DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/09&lt;br /&gt;
|20:45&lt;br /&gt;
|525&lt;br /&gt;
|13.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.1&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|5:30&lt;br /&gt;
|617&lt;br /&gt;
|16.0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/10&lt;br /&gt;
|15:47&lt;br /&gt;
|720&lt;br /&gt;
|18.7&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|3:25&lt;br /&gt;
|645&lt;br /&gt;
|16.8&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|14:10&lt;br /&gt;
|899&lt;br /&gt;
|18.3&lt;br /&gt;
|20.3&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/11&lt;br /&gt;
|23:27&lt;br /&gt;
|557&lt;br /&gt;
|14.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.2&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|10:51&lt;br /&gt;
|684&lt;br /&gt;
|17.4&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.53&lt;br /&gt;
|3.17&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/12&lt;br /&gt;
|19:44&lt;br /&gt;
|533&lt;br /&gt;
|14.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.5&lt;br /&gt;
|4.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/09/13&lt;br /&gt;
|1:35&lt;br /&gt;
|351&lt;br /&gt;
|9.9&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.92&lt;br /&gt;
|3.07&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, calculation of fat% on recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (9.9 kg milk x 5.92% fat + 14.1 kg milk x 4.92 % fat + 17.4 kg milk x 4.53 % fat) / (9.9 + 14.1 + 17.4) kg milk = 5.00 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To calculate the 24-hour fat yield, the calculated 24-hour milk yield is multiplied by the fat content thus obtained (5.00 %).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cell count, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimation of milk contents: It is recommended to set the robot not to take samples if the preceding milking of the individual cow is not more than 4 hours earlier. If such milkings occur the milk sampled from them is not suitable for 24-hour fat calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Calculation of 24-hour fat and protein contents with sampling scheme M where one milking interval was shorter than 4 hours.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(YYYY-MM-DD)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Time (h:mm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Preceding interval (minutes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk yield (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk secretion rate (g/min)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat %&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein%&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/12&lt;br /&gt;
|20:05&lt;br /&gt;
|590&lt;br /&gt;
|15.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|6:31&lt;br /&gt;
|626&lt;br /&gt;
|16.3&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/13&lt;br /&gt;
|17:12&lt;br /&gt;
|641&lt;br /&gt;
|17.1&lt;br /&gt;
|26.7&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|4:40&lt;br /&gt;
|688&lt;br /&gt;
|17.5&lt;br /&gt;
|25.4&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/14&lt;br /&gt;
|15:11&lt;br /&gt;
|631&lt;br /&gt;
|16.4&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|2:25&lt;br /&gt;
|674&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|24.5&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|9:47&lt;br /&gt;
|452&lt;br /&gt;
|10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|23.9&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|18:30&lt;br /&gt;
|523&lt;br /&gt;
|13.6&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.71&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/15&lt;br /&gt;
|21:15&lt;br /&gt;
|165&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|18.8&lt;br /&gt;
|5.16&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.48&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|2021/11/16&lt;br /&gt;
|7:49&lt;br /&gt;
|634&lt;br /&gt;
|16.5&lt;br /&gt;
|26.0&lt;br /&gt;
|4.47&lt;br /&gt;
|3.21&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Time between two consecutive milkings shorter than 4 hours, data not taken into account for calculation of milk contents.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calculation of the fat content of milk during the recording day:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
24-hour Fat% = (16.5 kg milk x 4.47 % fat + 13.6 kg milk x 4.71 % fat) / (16.5 kg + 13.6 kg) = 4.57 % &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same method is used for protein, somatic cells, urea, lactose and other milk constituents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods to calculate 24-hour yields from electronic milk meters ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Using data on more than one day (Hand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hand, K. J., Lazenby D., Miglior F. and Kelton D. F. 2006. Comparison of Protocols to Estimate Twenty-Four-Hour Fat and Protein Percentages for Herds with a Robotic Milking System. J. Dairy Sci. 89:1723–1726.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ====&lt;br /&gt;
An average of most recent milk weights is used for estimating 24-hour daily milk yield collected from Electronic Milk Meters. The average of most recent milk weights can be calculated using a number of preceding days. Table 22 reports the concordance correlations for a range of multiple-day averages. As soon as at least the 3 preceding days are used in the calculation, the concordance correlation reaches a high value of at least 0.981. There are no significant differences between 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-day averages. The correlations are independent from stage of lactation and parity. Thus, 24-hour yields can be the average of from 3 to 7 daily milkings previous to the test day when fat and protein samples were taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Concordance correlations for different multiple-day averages.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Multiple-day  average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Concordance correlation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.975&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.982&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.981&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|0.977&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===== Example for calculating 24-hour milk yield =====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Table20.png|center|thumb|923x923px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days is given by Equation 12.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Equation 12. 24-hour yield estimation averaging over 5 days.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation12.png|center|thumb|601x601px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advantages and disadvantages of this method =====&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning Milk Yield, this method leads to a better accuracy of the estimation of the true performance than a performance estimated on a 24-hour basis only. However, problems of disconnection between Milk weights and contents have been shown. The estimation bias increases proportionally to the number of days use to compute the 24-hour average. Thus, this method is recommended only if milk weight is the only variable of interest. If milk contents are of interest then the milk weight should be calculated using the milkings from the same day of sampling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Estimation of 24-hour fat and protein yield ====&lt;br /&gt;
Fat and protein yields should be determined from the 24-hour yield on the day of sampling, and not the averaged value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calculation of daily fat percentage from single samples (Gerke et al., 2025) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Constant access to the automatic milking system (AMS) leads to varying milking frequency of cows and subsequently varying milking interval lengths (MI) and milk yield (MY) of single milkings. This influences milk production and can result in variable milk composition in individual milkings during the day. Therefore, the fat percentage from one sampled milking must be adjusted before it can be used as a daily value. The method described specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving a corrected 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample on test day (TD) in AMS herds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Model specification ====&lt;br /&gt;
The multiple linear regression includes transformation, interaction, and polynomial parameters to model non-linearity and thereby improve prediction accuracy. Beside F% of a single milking (&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) on TD, the model focused on lactation characteristics and milk recording data of up to 4 preceding milkings. With milking intervals ranging between 4 and 20 hours, the method can be applied to milk recording samples from cows with 2 or 3 milkings whose milking intervals lengths (MI) before sampling accumulate to less than 24 h.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The functional form of the model described below specifies the data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample:[[File:Image A.png|center|frame]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DF%    =  estimated 24 h fat percentage on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;        =  sampled milking on TD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;m-x&#039;&#039;     =  x milkings before the milking where the sample was taken (x: 1-3)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F%      =  fat percentage of the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;) =  milk yield (kg) of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;)  =  length of time interval (min) preceding the sampled milking &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milk yields of the 1-3 preceding milkings of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MI(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) =  milking interval length corresponding to MY(&#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039;-x) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DIM       =  days in milk on TD ranging between 5 and 330 d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parity     =  parity class (e.g primiparous = 1 and multiparous = 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daytime  =  time-of-day group of &#039;&#039;m&#039;&#039; (e.g. morning/noon/evening)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e              = residual error&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method and its implementation are described in detail by Gerke et al. (2025).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calculation and examples ====&lt;br /&gt;
The mathematical notation, with the corresponding regression coefficients in Table 1 for calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%):[[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg|center|frame|Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)]][[File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Coefficients for regression formula.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg|alt=Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the data assembled on TD (Table 2), the corrected 24 h fat percentage (DF%) can be calculated using the mathematical formula und its corresponding coefficients listed in Table 1 as shown in the following examples:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg|alt=Corrected 24 h fat percentage|center|thumb|661x661px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reference ===&lt;br /&gt;
Gerke, J. S., Kammer, M., Werner, A., Köstler, R., Piepenburg, J., Mayerhofer, M., … Duda, J. (2025). Estimating daily fat percentage from single samples in herds with automatic milking system using a regression model. &#039;&#039;Livestock Science&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;293&#039;&#039;, 105649. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2025.105649&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Procedure 2 – Computing of Accumulated Lactation Yield ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Test Interval Method (TIM) (Sargent, 1968&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sargent, F. D., V. H. Lyton, and 0. G. Wall, J r . 1968. Test interval method of calculating Dairy Herd Improvement Association records. J. Dairy Sci. 51:170.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Test Interval Method is the reference method for calculating accumulated yields. Another adaptation of the method is the Centering Date Method where the yields from the preceding recording are used until the mid point of the recording interval and then substituted by the yields from the following recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following equations are used to compute the lactation record for milk yield (MY), for fat (and protein) yield (FY), and for fat (and protein) percent (FP).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation1111.png|none|thumb|653x653px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Where:&lt;br /&gt;
M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the weights in kilograms, given to one decimal place, of the milk yielded in the 24 hours of the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the fat yields estimated by multiplying the milk yield and the fat percent (given to at least two decimal places) collected on the recording day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n-1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are the intervals, in days, between recording dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the lactation period start date and the first recording date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the interval, in days, between the last recording date and the end of the lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The equation applied for fat yield and percentage must be applied for any other milk components such as protein and lactose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Details of how to apply the formulae are shown in Table 3 using the example data in Table 1, below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Raw data used in example (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Data:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving March 25&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;of days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Quantity of milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;weighed in kg&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;percentage&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;in grams&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|April &lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.65&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May &lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|24.8&lt;br /&gt;
|3.45&lt;br /&gt;
|856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June &lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|26.6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.40&lt;br /&gt;
|904&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July &lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55&lt;br /&gt;
|824&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|20.2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85&lt;br /&gt;
|778&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|August &lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.05&lt;br /&gt;
|721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|13.2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.45&lt;br /&gt;
|587&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|October &lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|9.6&lt;br /&gt;
|4.65&lt;br /&gt;
|446&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|4.95&lt;br /&gt;
|287&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|5.25&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Lactation period summary (TIM).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Beginning of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|March 26&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|End of lactation:&lt;br /&gt;
|January 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Duration of lactation period:&lt;br /&gt;
|284 days&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of testings (weighings):&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Computations using Test Interval Method.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;both days included&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily production&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Days&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Grams of fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg milk&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Kg fat&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mar 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 8&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|28.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1 029&lt;br /&gt;
|395&lt;br /&gt;
|14.410&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apr 9&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May 6&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(28.2+24.8)/2&lt;br /&gt;
|(1 029+856) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|742&lt;br /&gt;
|26.389&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|May 7&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June 5&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|(24.8+26.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(856+904) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|771&lt;br /&gt;
|26.400&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|June 6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July 7&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(26.6+23.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(904+824) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|797&lt;br /&gt;
|27.648&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|July 8&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 2&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(23.2+20.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(824+778) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|564&lt;br /&gt;
|20.817&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 30&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(20.2+17.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(778+721) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|532&lt;br /&gt;
|20.980&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Aug 31&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 25&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(17.8+13.2) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(721+587) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|403&lt;br /&gt;
|17.008&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sept. 26&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 27&lt;br /&gt;
|32&lt;br /&gt;
|(13.2+9.6) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(587+446) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|365&lt;br /&gt;
|16.541&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Oct. 28&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 22&lt;br /&gt;
|26&lt;br /&gt;
|(9.6+5.8) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(446+287) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|200&lt;br /&gt;
|9.536&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Nov. 23&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 20&lt;br /&gt;
|28&lt;br /&gt;
|(5.8+4.4) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|(287+231) /2&lt;br /&gt;
|143&lt;br /&gt;
|7.253&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dec. 21&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Jan. 3&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|4.4&lt;br /&gt;
|231&lt;br /&gt;
|62&lt;br /&gt;
|3.234&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|284&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|4973&lt;br /&gt;
|190.216&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of milk: 4 973. kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Total quantity of fat: 190 kg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |Average fat percentage (190.216 /  4973) x 100 =  3.82%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves (ISLC) (Wilmink, 1987&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Comparison of different methods of predicting 305-day milk yield using means calculated from within-herd lactation curves. Livest. Prod. Sci. 17:l.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the method &#039;Interpolation using Standard Lactation Curves&#039; missing test day yields and 305 day projections are predicted. The method makes use of separate standard lactation curves representing the expected course of the lactation, for a certain herd production level, age at calving and season of calving and yield trait. By interpolation using standard lactation curves, the fact that after calving milk yield generally increases and subsequently decreases is taken into account. The daily yields are predicted for fixed days of the lactation: day 0, 10, 30, 50 etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cumulative yield is calculated as follows in :&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation2222222.png|none|thumb|474x474px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;           =            the i-th daily yield;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
INT&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;      =            the interval in days between the daily yields y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i+1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039;            =            total number of daily yields (measured daily yields and predicted daily yields).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next example illustrates the calculation of a record in progress. The cow was tested at day 35 and day 65 of the lactation. To determine the lactation yield, daily milk yields are determined for day 0, 10, 30 and 50 of the lactation, by means of the standard lactation curves. The daily yields are in Table 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Measured and derived daily yields, used to calculate the record in progress in the example (ISLC).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Day of lactation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|25.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|10&lt;br /&gt;
|27.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|30&lt;br /&gt;
|31.7&lt;br /&gt;
|Predicted&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|35&lt;br /&gt;
|31.8&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|50&lt;br /&gt;
|32.9&lt;br /&gt;
|Interpolated using standard lactation curve&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|65&lt;br /&gt;
|33.0&lt;br /&gt;
|Measured&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, the record in progress can be calculated by means of the formula for a cumulative yield as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(10 - 1)     * 25.9 +  (10+1)   * 27.8] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(20 - 1)    * 27.8 +  (20+1)  * 31.7] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(5 - 1)     * 31.7 +     (5+1)   * 31.8] / 2     +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 31.8 +  (15+1)   * 32.9] / 2    +&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[(15 - 1)     * 32.9 +  (15+1)   * 33.0] / 2    = 2005.3 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This corresponds to the surface below the line through the predicted and measured daily yields (see Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Figure1.png|center|thumb|621x621px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Example of calculation of record in progress.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Best prediction (BP) (VanRaden, 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;VanRaden, P.M. 1997. Lactation yields and accuracies computed from test day yields and (co)variances by best prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3015-3022.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded milk weights are combined into a lactation record using standard selection index methods. Let vector y contain M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and let E(&#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039;) contain corresponding the expected values for each recorded day. The E(y) are obtained from standard lactation curves for the population or for the herd and should account for the cow&#039;s age and other environmental factors such as season, milking frequency, etc. The yields in &#039;&#039;&#039;y&#039;&#039;&#039; covary as a function of the recording interval between them (I). Diagonal elements in Var(y) are the population or herd variance for that recording day and off diagonals are obtained from autoregressive or similar functions such as Corr(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)=0.995&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for first lactations or 0.992&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; for later lactations. Covariances of one observation with the lactation yield, for example Cov(M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, MY), are the sum of 305 individual covariances. E(MY) is the sum of 305 daily expected values. Lactation milk yield is then predicted as Equation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation333333.png|none|thumb|640x640px]]&lt;br /&gt;
With best prediction, predicted milk yields have less variance than true milk yields. With TIM, estimated yields have more variance than true yields. The reason is that predicted yields are regressed toward the mean unless all 305 daily yields are observed. With best prediction, the predicted MY for a lactation without any observed yields is E(MY) which is the population or herd mean for a cow of that age and season. With TIM, the estimated MY is undefined if no daily yields are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Milk, fat, and protein yields can be processed separately using single-trait best prediction or jointly using multi-trait best prediction. Replacement of M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to F&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; or P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, to P&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; gives the single-trait predictions for fat or for protein. Multi-trait predictions require larger vectors and matrices but similar algebra. Products of trait correlations and autoregressive correlations, for example, may provide the needed covariances.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multiple-Trait Procedure (MTP) (Schaeffer &amp;amp; Jamrozik, 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schaeffer, L.R., and J. Jamrozik. 1996. Multiple-trait prediction of lactation yields for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 79:2044-2055.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Multiple-Trait Procedure predicts 305-d lactation yields for milk, fat, protein and SCS, incorporating information about standard lactation curves and covariances between milk, fat, and protein yields and SCS. Test day yields are weighted by their relative variances, and standard lactation curves of cows of similar breed, region, lactation number, age, and season of calving are used in the estimation of lactation curve parameters for each cow. The multiple-trait procedure can handle long intervals between test days, test days with milk only recorded, and can make 305-d predictions on the basis of just one test day record per cow. The procedure also lends itself to the calculation of peak yield, day of peak yield, yield persistency, and expected test-day yields, which could be useful management tools for a producer on a milk recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP method is based upon Wilmink&#039;s model in conjunction with an approach incorporating standard curve parameters for cows with the same production characteristics. Wilmink&#039;s function for one trait is given by Equation 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Wilmink function for one trait (MTP).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y = A + B&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; ± C&#039;&#039;exp&#039;&#039; (-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;) + &#039;&#039;e&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where y is yield on day t of lactation, A, B, and C are related to the shape of the lactation curve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The parameters A, B, and C need to be estimated for each yield trait. The yield traits have high phenotypic correlations, and MTP would incorporate these correlations. Use of MTP would allow for the prediction of yields even if data were not available on each test day for a cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vector of parameters to be estimated for one cow are designated:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vectro.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
where M, F, and P represent milk, fat, and protein, respectively, and S represents somatic cell score. The vector c is to be estimated from the available test-day records. Let c0 represent the corresponding parameters estimated across all cows with the same production characteristics as the cow in question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
be the vector of yield traits and somatic cell scores on test &#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039; at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of the lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence matrix, &#039;&#039;X&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;, is constructed as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The MTP equations are:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation55555.png|none|thumb|560x560px]]&lt;br /&gt;
and &#039;&#039;n&#039;&#039; is the number of tests for that cow. &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; is a matrix of order 4 that contains the variances and covariances among the yields on &#039;&#039;k&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; test at day &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; of lactation. The elements of this matrix were derived from regression formulas based on fitting phenotypic variances and covariances of yields to models with &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; as covariables. Thus, element &#039;&#039;i&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; of &#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; would be determined by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) = ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t) + ß&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2ij&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
G is a 12 x 12 matrix containing variances and covariances among the parameters in &#039;&#039;&#039;ĉ&#039;&#039;&#039; and represents the cow to cow variation in these parameters, which includes genetic and permanent environmental effects, but ignores genetic covariances between cows. The parameters for &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;G&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; vary depending on the breed, but must be known. Initially, these matrices were allowed to vary by region of Canada in addition to breed, but this meant that there could exist two cows with identical production records on the same days in milk, but because one cow was in one region and the other cow was in another region, then the accuracy of their predictions would be different. This was considered to be too confusing for dairy producers, so that regional differences in variance-covariance matrices were ignored and one set of parameters would be used for all regions for a particular breed. Estimation of G is described later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a cow has a test, but only milk yield is reported, then&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
y’&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(Mk   0  0   0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:And.png|center|thumb|540x540px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverse of &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; is the regular inverse of the nonzero submatrix within &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;R&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, ignoring the zero rows and columns. Thus, missing yields can be accommodated in MTP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accuracy of predicted 305-d lactation totals depends on the number of test-day records during the lactation and DIM associated with each test. Thus, any prediction procedure will require reliability figures to be reported with all predictions, especially if fewer tests at very irregular intervals are going to be frequent in milk recording. At the moment, an approximate procedure is applied that uses the inverse elements of &#039;&#039;&#039;(X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X + G&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== 1.1          Example calculations ====&lt;br /&gt;
Four test day records on a 25 month old, Holstein cow calving in June from Ontario are given in the Table 5 below. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; align = &amp;quot;left&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Example test day data for a cow (MTP).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Test  no.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;DIM=&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Exp(-0.05&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein  (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;SCS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|15&lt;br /&gt;
|0.47237&lt;br /&gt;
|28.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3.130&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|54&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06721&lt;br /&gt;
|29.2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.12&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|2.463&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.000083&lt;br /&gt;
|23.7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97&lt;br /&gt;
|0.78&lt;br /&gt;
|2.157&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|250&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0000037&lt;br /&gt;
|20.8&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|2.619&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice that two tests do not have fat and protein yields, and that intervals between tests are irregular and large. The vector of standard curve parameters based on all available comparable cow, is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Vector4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
The R^(-1)_k matrices for each test day need to be constructed. These matrices are derived from regression equations. The equations for Holsteins were:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MM&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|71.0752 - 0.281201&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0004977&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4365 - 0.013274&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000302&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0504 - 0.008286&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000163&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;MS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.7993 + 0.013209&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000056&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FF&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1312 - 0.000725&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000001586&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0739 - 0.000386&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.000000926&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;FS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0386 + 0.000292&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001796&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PP&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066 - 0.000267&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; + 0.0000005636&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;PS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;- 0.0404 + 0.000369&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000001743&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;r&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SS&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;(t) =&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|3.0404 - 0.000083&#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; - 0.000006105&#039;&#039;t&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The inverses of the residual variance-covariance matrices for yields for the four test days are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0151259&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_1&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0080354&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3334553&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1685584&lt;br /&gt;
|0.345947&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_2&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.345947&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|26.830915&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.851935&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-17.40281&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|187.18579&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0254775&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.041445&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.584885&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3365425&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2620161&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_3&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1479068&lt;br /&gt;
|54.446977&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7.943903&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-56.01333&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|317.9609&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0316069&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3306741&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.92601&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3654369&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0329465&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;R^(-1)_4&#039;&#039;&#039; = =&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0251039&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3981981&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12 is the same for all cows of the same breed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Left 6x6.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Inverse matrix G^(-1) of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Note that many covariances between different parameters of the lactation curves have been set to zero. When all covariances were included, the prediction errors for individual cows were very large, possibly because the covariances were highly correlated to each other within and between traits. Including only covariances between the same parameter among traits gave much smaller prediction errors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The elements of the MTP equations of order 12 for this cow are shown in partitioned format also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;X’R&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;-1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;X =&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;[[File:Elements of the MTP equations of order 12.jpg|center|thumb|600x600px|Elements of the MTP equations of order 12]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7.png|center|thumb|632x632px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution vector for this cow is&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation6666.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To predict 305-day yields, Y&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;305&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equation7777.png|none|thumb|551x551px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6 is used separately for each trait (milk, fat, protein, and SCS). The results for this cow were 7456 kg milk, 301 kg fat, and 239 kg protein. The result for SCS is divided by 305 to give an average daily SCS of 2.477.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Appendices =&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1 - Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In Table 6 the adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields, using the Liu method, can be found. The description of the Liu method can be found in [https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_02_%E2%80%93_Cattle_Milk_Recording#Procedure_1:_Computing_24-hour_Yields Procedure 1 of Section 2.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;10&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Adjustment factors to calculate 24-hour yields using the Liu method. Milking time (MT) is either 1 (PM) or 2 (AM), i = parity class, j= milking interval class and k = stage of lactation class.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;MT&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;k&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk   yield (DMY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat   yield (DFY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein   yield (DPY)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Intercept&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slope&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.29333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83283&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30911&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43518&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77461&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.17676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97447&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56914&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12246&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00568&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26476&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82468&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12624&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0137&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41282&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01814&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25025&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64707&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99629&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79548&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06578&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05249&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.7751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00979&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.544&lt;br /&gt;
|2.1478&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06425&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06779&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13851&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5.8584&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33193&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42953&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20756&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.45524&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84258&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43235&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74001&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.64052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27155&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57017&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16439&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84539&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86835&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06209&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18647&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10803&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0193&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11336&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12055&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97206&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07193&lt;br /&gt;
|2.10651&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1386&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06532&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71752&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06501&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05569&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12881&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80244&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11078&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.47396&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2135&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6805&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99092&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.81702&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04348&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1127&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98403&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.998&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99517&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47055&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04826&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83151&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07492&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07547&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.923&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07728&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06457&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08391&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85264&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0873&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|2.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.75042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24794&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95376&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.97505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96711&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20029&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71842&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97081&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33365&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02986&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79996&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07631&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03167&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.41505&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95456&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.67488&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13433&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85893&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09432&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97755&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89907&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04841&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08715&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96251&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07132&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04225&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80326&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03554&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06072&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04747&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.76763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92863&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15754&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10187&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88749&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92048&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2236&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64149&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8823&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22763&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17614&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9782&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.44625&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97049&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94647&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.379&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97307&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15965&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0896&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94575&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62948&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11021&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0852&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94593&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.45651&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0254&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07479&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92789&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05846&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00196&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01088&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9497&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.101&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.96605&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25841&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52566&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12097&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2281&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96085&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19036&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69013&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9375&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.39473&lt;br /&gt;
|1.952&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97582&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.37955&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94127&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19579&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08447&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93156&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36203&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12393&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14291&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75822&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03845&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5702&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76796&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06449&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.93654&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61894&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15032&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.39662&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81581&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5881&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16909&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74794&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.78325&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82778&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19228&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71802&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12368&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8268&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.39116&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1969&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12282&lt;br /&gt;
|1.848&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20111&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83255&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84257&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3.75639&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78665&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25205&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56174&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14105&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.42153&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96245&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90436&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14321&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77423&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10703&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82306&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.97557&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82746&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26651&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58374&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76385&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.26939&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80503&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12924&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81061&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.90779&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89861&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18578&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13948&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79679&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.8265&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87632&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67929&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12377&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.26312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87397&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09917&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82528&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08819&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31382&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95773&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02612&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99012&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.63752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31102&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16637&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96686&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.56226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91521&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26761&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64342&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94145&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51983&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26221&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65088&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12245&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03857&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4.51563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18468&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80715&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15252&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.60334&lt;br /&gt;
|2.07338&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16011&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81257&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09892&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05493&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.86068&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98457&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79197&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08619&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04046&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6596&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11753&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83687&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09908&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96479&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.94656&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03607&lt;br /&gt;
|0.23716&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88765&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.20525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98621&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3553&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46663&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92175&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31729&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29682&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12491&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00945&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95977&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16059&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79846&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06713&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12835&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14889&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90772&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05279&lt;br /&gt;
|2.14047&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.82235&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22517&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07573&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04014&lt;br /&gt;
|2.17549&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53608&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11472&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81148&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0676&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03957&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.85525&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27991&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62403&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12863&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98973&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.1508&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9852&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3635&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13952&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97074&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.31493&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02332&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31131&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55183&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11703&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00696&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47354&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71637&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09402&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04147&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68517&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08809&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14418&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80246&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06917&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05808&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.316&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12714&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11206&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04723&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12486&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4841&lt;br /&gt;
|2.20538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04633&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02915&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02369&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18113&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82623&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01819&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25826&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69268&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11251&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97665&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9811&lt;br /&gt;
|0.36283&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50648&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.4545&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03386&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75339&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09698&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.46446&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01626&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76414&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08026&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.11339&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00724&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14884&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07749&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00585&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51141&lt;br /&gt;
|2.04563&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11559&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82474&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06194&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02586&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.95936&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07044&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95281&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03645&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0993&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.36561&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97323&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2649&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65361&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92402&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.66222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89882&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20442&lt;br /&gt;
|1.96165&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93028&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78673&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0426&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17183&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0678&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61868&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11914&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80878&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99283&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.30123&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02218&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10515&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80653&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05345&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00292&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65695&lt;br /&gt;
|2.08269&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0332&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0525&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.3773&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08319&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94741&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.82556&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95506&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31731&lt;br /&gt;
|1.51798&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12008&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89324&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7235&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94883&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30621&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5177&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09365&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93764&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98273&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69341&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95161&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|2.05295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13961&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74391&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04468&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01091&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72188&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0465&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79927&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03137&lt;br /&gt;
|2.03309&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.21598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97942&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07065&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04484&lt;br /&gt;
|1.98491&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.55054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89128&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61031&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89085&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.0062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3119&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18009&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76865&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.95204&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84947&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30465&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.789&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.9168&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18751&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70412&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09531&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88355&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48851&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09973&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81041&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05904&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92497&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.22525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.94454&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06617&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87082&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05516&lt;br /&gt;
|1.91259&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93756&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08109&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04706&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93165&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4.09874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87708&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20312&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73434&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15506&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83083&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.66403&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.31808&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56093&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18049&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.24375&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89351&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13583&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83427&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.24175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.92084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72611&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87438&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93625&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78642&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.90934&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01753&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89095&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13742&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74752&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.86553&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97568&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97215&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88807&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04057&lt;br /&gt;
|1.95672&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.44076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73133&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13323&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68913&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.99596&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64527&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17533&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62422&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.83372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68144&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.52033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14525&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66706&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.87034&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68102&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20979&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60153&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13627&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68885&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80424&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70485&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06231&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81524&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.79304&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89072&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09906&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80312&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03277&lt;br /&gt;
|1.89435&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0593&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81589&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.72284&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68499&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19226&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66567&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1237&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66453&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4.42667&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55652&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14361&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66251&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.7019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75871&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.38452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11056&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72312&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.41538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75937&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14575&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68355&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09038&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81649&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13926&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70623&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0597&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2.0843&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7735&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57508&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78566&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80651&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78712&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05269&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81727&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.45314&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18152&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73443&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07657&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78025&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.01217&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70966&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19388&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80606&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.09997&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74945&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14493&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68277&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7922&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.36683&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71741&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75721&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75755&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08776&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76946&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04244&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79675&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75452&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09422&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76794&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04181&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80604&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74114&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08039&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78306&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02347&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85596&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47047&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78588&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17271&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69379&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06511&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2.22168&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20701&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08178&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71455&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.50108&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69618&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61962&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70516&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.97141&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7202&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1446&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66357&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73201&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.17054&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75879&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1172&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69234&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04624&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75806&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74755&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70968&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12562&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67603&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0629&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72333&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.52482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07345&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02671&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79288&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24301&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59094&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07156&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73136&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.99594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73438&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1984&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5954&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06489&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73449&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8804&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72362&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67977&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06783&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71916&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83337&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71477&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70244&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05764&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73194&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49752&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13128&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65461&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04656&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7433&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.3042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7305&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75315&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04482&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7399&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2.00868&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67669&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12298&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64761&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09175&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64669&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.84993&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12918&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74026&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74802&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.93666&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67406&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16606&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59943&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04535&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.12115&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64964&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19988&lt;br /&gt;
|1.50821&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05229&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68986&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.68831&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09674&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6838&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75787&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13081&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69479&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06413&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72559&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04936&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67757&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5893&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72537&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02598&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80138&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01591&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74082&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.72519&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71955&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03157&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78405&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02889&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71972&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85937&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66064&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49676&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06807&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63599&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64892&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2374&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43845&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6431&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56905&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66084&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15434&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55598&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04336&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|0.74968&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69857&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13496&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56636&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02871&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6933&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.08222&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65925&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10847&lt;br /&gt;
|1.613&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03305&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67829&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.1124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68059&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14267&lt;br /&gt;
|1.57525&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04416&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6776&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.88031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6751&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10534&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60483&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66444&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|0.62802&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72402&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19225&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54631&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03247&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69368&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.83902&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15492&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53421&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05922&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61411&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33727&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19835&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43309&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05874&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61141&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.06381&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11026&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58762&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04019&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64574&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.61716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13322&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53166&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05648&lt;br /&gt;
|1.59149&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.19134&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60463&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11089&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54864&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06258&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56912&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58872&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60204&lt;br /&gt;
|0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04748&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63282&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.46775&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78609&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28956&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68515&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72171&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5.69879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67614&lt;br /&gt;
|0.3725&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5045&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19774&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64659&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5.18985&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66571&lt;br /&gt;
|0.40124&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40574&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17828&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65793&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3.43435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74182&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20332&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66994&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11075&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76221&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.48643&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76219&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13714&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7396&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09636&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75624&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.41151&lt;br /&gt;
|1.82292&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15415&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6725&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06549&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80013&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9096&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08811&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7823&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03467&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85275&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.85358&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83615&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28355&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64765&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83138&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.81188&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74978&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25972&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62799&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11238&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7646&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.16717&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76679&lt;br /&gt;
|0.29832&lt;br /&gt;
|1.53409&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09407&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78959&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.33664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78934&lt;br /&gt;
|0.22694&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07273&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80371&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01675&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79303&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10664&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79792&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06062&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8184&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80081&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13659&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70935&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07335&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01661&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8295&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0548&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84688&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03414&lt;br /&gt;
|1.84213&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.01474&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8142&lt;br /&gt;
|0.21867&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74325&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05359&lt;br /&gt;
|1.83088&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53989&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28196&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60868&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10823&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73763&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|3.38412&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69907&lt;br /&gt;
|0.27409&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56164&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11042&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.2171&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74622&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16076&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70107&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07372&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75906&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.11799&lt;br /&gt;
|1.80944&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11087&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75678&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03792&lt;br /&gt;
|1.81891&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.40464&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76033&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10048&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72933&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05342&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75745&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11328&lt;br /&gt;
|1.8972&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.87101&lt;br /&gt;
|0.00787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.88753&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.59777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74476&lt;br /&gt;
|0.28154&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66509&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71072&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.53853&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69511&lt;br /&gt;
|0.38311&lt;br /&gt;
|1.46839&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13243&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66523&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.80538&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70587&lt;br /&gt;
|0.26686&lt;br /&gt;
|1.55787&lt;br /&gt;
|0.1126&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68024&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|2.18191&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72068&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18333&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65612&lt;br /&gt;
|0.085&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71029&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.23383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7716&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12824&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04845&lt;br /&gt;
|1.76628&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.85652&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79279&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0763&lt;br /&gt;
|1.79314&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.78528&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.97995&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77178&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0797&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7577&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03846&lt;br /&gt;
|1.77043&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.47016&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74985&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32061&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60073&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10455&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.76194&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68979&lt;br /&gt;
|0.32787&lt;br /&gt;
|1.54675&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11781&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69109&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.61421&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70766&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20307&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64866&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08315&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71378&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6809&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74028&lt;br /&gt;
|0.16795&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66491&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06202&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73305&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.31241&lt;br /&gt;
|1.75722&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14383&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68302&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05338&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74562&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66563&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71781&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12721&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69231&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06147&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.87471&lt;br /&gt;
|1.74991&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07882&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71706&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04173&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73246&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72832&lt;br /&gt;
|0.20839&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67759&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06001&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71779&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|3.20558&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.33676&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47797&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09642&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6546&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5827&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71538&lt;br /&gt;
|0.19719&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05324&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71254&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7692&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69473&lt;br /&gt;
|0.14854&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66225&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05758&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69946&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33003&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70542&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10726&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69398&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04565&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7096&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.01266&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71155&lt;br /&gt;
|0.09376&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70285&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04005&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70822&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9856&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70091&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06454&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73063&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0394&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69796&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|2.02441&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67788&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30435&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5407&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08673&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63673&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|1.43949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71143&lt;br /&gt;
|0.30098&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47963&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06527&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67295&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68946&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.24777&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47116&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06594&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64834&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.10967&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68591&lt;br /&gt;
|0.15663&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60109&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04949&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67069&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.77866&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70882&lt;br /&gt;
|0.11248&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64389&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03402&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70215&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|0.67502&lt;br /&gt;
|1.69719&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10289&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62419&lt;br /&gt;
|0.03507&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67744&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.65216&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70336&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05545&lt;br /&gt;
|1.73388&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02233&lt;br /&gt;
|1.72102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1.33877&lt;br /&gt;
|1.67358&lt;br /&gt;
|0.18369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64385&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06055&lt;br /&gt;
|1.63818&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|0.71697&lt;br /&gt;
|1.71038&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25461&lt;br /&gt;
|1.49037&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04798&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66397&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|2.13197&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62429&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2393&lt;br /&gt;
|1.47673&lt;br /&gt;
|0.08136&lt;br /&gt;
|1.6065&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|1.16932&lt;br /&gt;
|1.66188&lt;br /&gt;
|0.13759&lt;br /&gt;
|1.60108&lt;br /&gt;
|0.0463&lt;br /&gt;
|1.64856&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|1.48369&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62387&lt;br /&gt;
|0.12547&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58988&lt;br /&gt;
|0.06919&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5925&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|1.18879&lt;br /&gt;
|1.65442&lt;br /&gt;
|0.10031&lt;br /&gt;
|1.62813&lt;br /&gt;
|0.07392&lt;br /&gt;
|1.58846&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|7&lt;br /&gt;
|0.58052&lt;br /&gt;
|1.68546&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02696&lt;br /&gt;
|1.7382&lt;br /&gt;
|0.01982&lt;br /&gt;
|1.70519&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2 - Renewed estimation method for 24-hour fat percentage in AM/PM milk recording scheme ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abstract ===&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments on imprecision of the estimation method for 24-hour fat % in AM/PM milk recording schemes the regression formula was extended and re-estimated. Non-linearity for the existing effects of protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample, milk amount of previous milking and interval before the previous milking was incorporated by using polynomials. Extensions were made by adding the effects of time of sampling, parity and month of sampling as class variables and lactation stage as polynomial. In total a reduction of the standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % of 2.4% was reached (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Keywords&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: estimation, fat %, AM/PM.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The AM/PM milk recording routine is based on only one morning (a.m.) or evening (p.m.) milk sample which are collected in an alternating way. A condition to take part in this AM/PM milk recording in The Netherlands is that on farm electronic milk measurements (EMM) are available. EMM-data consists of time of milking and milk quantity of every milking. Based on one milk sample and the EMM-data the 24-hour fat % is estimated (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Peeters, R. and P. Galesloot, 2002.Estimating daily fat yield from a single milking on test day for herds with a robotic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 85, 682-688.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Also for farms with an automatic milking system (AMS) this estimation is used when only one milk sample is available for analysis on milk composition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on comments from farmers on fluctuations in 24-hour fat % preliminary research was conducted. This showed that the current estimation caused an underestimation of 24-hour fat % based on an a.m.-sample of 0.09% while the estimate based on a p.m.-sample was overestimated by 0.05%. Possible causes for this fluctuation are differences in milk-fat synthesis between day- and night-time as was shown by Gilbert et al. (1972) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gilbert, G.R., G.L. Hargrove and M. Kroger, 1972. Diurnal variations in milk yield, fat yield, milk fat % and milk protein % by the test interval method. J. Dairy Sci. 56, 409-410.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Lee &amp;amp; Wardorp (1984)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, A.J. and Wardorp, 1984. Predicting daily milk yield, fat percent, and protein percent from morning or afternoon tests. J. Dairy Sci. 67, 351-360.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Other factors of imprecision in the current estimation can be caused by lactation stage and parity, two factors that are accounted for in the method of Liu et al. (2000)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Liu, Z., R. Reents, F. Reinhardt and K Kuwan, 2000. Approaches to estimating daily yield from single milk testing schemes and use of a.m.-p.m. records in test-day model genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2672-2682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The objective of this research is to re-estimate the regression formula which is used to estimate the 24-hour fat %s in AM/PM milk recording and AMS recordings with only one sample. By testing for non-linearity of current effects and introducing new explanatory variables the aim is to increase the accuracy of the estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Material and Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The data needed for the objective had to meet a number of criteria. The most important criteria were that the data comprised:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* differences in interval between milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* different milking times;&lt;br /&gt;
* multiple samples per cow per herd test date;&lt;br /&gt;
* milking time and quantity of all milkings;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only data of farms that use an AMS met all of these criteria. Therefore the research was conducted on data of all farms that used an AMS from January 20&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2001 until July 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2004. Records with only one sample per herd test date were excluded from the analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to estimate as well as validate the new regression formula the each herd test date was assigned at random into two separate datasets. Dataset 1 was used for estimation and contained 371.528 samplings on 50.591 cows on 537 farms. Dataset 2 was used for validation and contained 371.885 milkings on 50.643 cows on 538 farms. Some characteristics of variables of both datasets are presented in Table 1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Characteristics of variables in dataset 1 (estimation) and dataset 2 (validation).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Variable&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 1 (estimation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dataset 2 (validation)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mean&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample milk amount (kg)&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|10.1&lt;br /&gt;
|3.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample fat (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|4.40&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|4.41&lt;br /&gt;
|0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Sample protein (%)&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|3.49&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Time at sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|12.29&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|12.31&lt;br /&gt;
|7.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before sample (min)        &lt;br /&gt;
|520&lt;br /&gt;
|154&lt;br /&gt;
|521&lt;br /&gt;
|155&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interval before prev. milking (min)  &lt;br /&gt;
|526&lt;br /&gt;
|158&lt;br /&gt;
|527&lt;br /&gt;
|159&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Methods ===&lt;br /&gt;
The analysis started with the currently used regression formula which uses the effects: fat %, protein %, milk amount of sampling, interval before sampling, milk amount of the previous milking and interval before the previous milking (Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot, 2002&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). All these effects are considered to be linear. As an extra check of the data this regression formula was re-estimated and compared to the currently used regression formula. In order to estimate the regression formula first of all the 24-hour fat % was determined by using a weighted average of all milk samples for that cow on that herd test date.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequently, a number of changes to the regression formula were tested for their effect on the accuracy of the 24-hour fat %. The changes that are tested are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# non-linearity of the current effects;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of time at sampling;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of lactation stage;&lt;br /&gt;
# effect of parity;&lt;br /&gt;
# month of milk recording;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects were all tested in a similar way by plotting the residuals of the regression formula without the effect that is tested to the tested effect. Based on this plot a possible relation between residual and effect becomes clear and the best way of incorporating the effect is shown. The conclusion if an effect had a positive effect on the accuracy of the regression formula was based on the standard deviation of the difference between estimated and true 24-hour fat %. Also the correlation between the two fat %s and the b-factor (regression coefficient) of the linear regression between the two fat %s were considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Results ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression coefficients of the re-estimated regression formula differed slightly from the estimates by Peeters &amp;amp; Galesloot (2002)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, probably due to the different dataset.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1a: Average residual per class for the variables sample fat %&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1b.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1b: Sample protein %&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1c.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1c : Interval before sampling&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1d.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1d : Interval before previous milking&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1e.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1e : Sample milk amount&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig1f.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 1f: Milk amount before sampling&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1a to 1f show the effect of the variables in the regression formula on the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat %. Of all variables, only fat % of the milk sample (Figure 1a) seemed to be linear. A 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the interval before the previous milking. The other variables, i.e. protein % of the milk sample, interval before sampling, milk amount of sample and milk amount of the previous milking were described by a 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial. For all variables except fat % of the sample higher order polynomials were found significant. This however was caused by the large amount of data and no longer a possible biological effect since it also had no effect on the accuracy of the estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effect of time of sampling showed a large amount of variability over time. Using a polynomial to fit the data was therefore difficult. Estimation of the effect by hourly intervals was a good alternative as is shown in Figure 2. Lactation stage had mainly an effect in the first 50 days of lactation as is shown by Figure 3. A 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial fitted the data properly.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig2.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Average residual per class for time of sampling (minutes after midnight).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefig33.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Average residual per class for lactation  stage (days).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The effects of parity and month of milk sampling were both considered as class variables. For parity the effects of parity 1 to 6 and 7 or higher were considered. Table 2 shows that mainly for the lower parities the estimated 24-hour fat % was overestimated. Also the months May to October, usually the pasture period, showed an overestimation of 24-hour fat %.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Effect of parity and month of sampling on estimated 24-hour fat % (*100).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Parity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Month  of sampling&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Estimate&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-6.58&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|January&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|February&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.28&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.42&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.54&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.48&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|April&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.27&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|May&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.07&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|June&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-3.36&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|7+&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|July&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.32&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|August&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-5.52&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|September&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-4.74&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|October&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-2.24&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|November&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.97&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|December&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.00&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align: center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Statistics of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % for six regression formulas (current, re-estimated + five steps), each also including preceding steps.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Regression&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Std.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Min&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Max&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;b-factor&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Current,  re-estimated&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2856&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.840&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.224&lt;br /&gt;
|0.898&lt;br /&gt;
|0.807&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Non-linearity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2820&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.890      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.198&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.812&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Time of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2817&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.877      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.211&lt;br /&gt;
|0.901&lt;br /&gt;
|0.813&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Lactation stage&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2803&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.883     &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.196&lt;br /&gt;
|0.902&lt;br /&gt;
|0.814&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Parity&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2794&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.887      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.179&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.816&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align: left;&amp;quot;|Month of sampling&lt;br /&gt;
|0.2788&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-1.868      &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|2.175&lt;br /&gt;
|0.903&lt;br /&gt;
|0.817 &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 shows some statistics of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % based on dataset 2 (validation) of the different regression formulas. Each of the five changes to the regression formula had a (minor) positive effect on either the standard deviation of the difference between the true and estimated 24-hour fat % (Std.), the correlation (Cor) between the two fat %s, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s or a combination of the these. All changes together reduced the standard deviation with 2.4% from 0.2856 to 0.2788, increased the correlation from 0.898 to 0.903 and increased the b-factor from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conclusions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The regression formula to estimate the 24-hour fat % based on one milk sample was improved. Improvements were first of all considering non-linearity of the variables by using polynomials for protein % of the milk sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), interval before sampling (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of sample (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order), milk amount of previous milking (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order) and interval before the previous milking (2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order). Secondly, adding the effects of time of sampling (class variable), lactation stage (3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; order polynomial), parity (class variable) and month of sampling (class variable) gave a further reduction of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat %. The total reduction in standard deviation of the difference between true and estimated 24-hour fat % is 2.4% (0.2856 to 0.2788). The correlation between the two fat %s increased from 0.898 to 0.903, the b-factor of the linear regression between the two fat %s increased from 0.807 to 0.817.&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Corrected_24_h_fat_percentage.jpg&amp;diff=5050</id>
		<title>File:Corrected 24 h fat percentage.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Corrected_24_h_fat_percentage.jpg&amp;diff=5050"/>
		<updated>2026-06-29T12:00:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Corrected 24 h fat percentage&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Example_data_required_for_estimating_24_h_fat_percentage_(DF%25).jpg&amp;diff=5049</id>
		<title>File:Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%).jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Example_data_required_for_estimating_24_h_fat_percentage_(DF%25).jpg&amp;diff=5049"/>
		<updated>2026-06-29T11:55:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Example data required for estimating 24 h fat percentage (DF%)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Calculating_the_daily_fat_percentage_(DF%25)_2.jpg&amp;diff=5048</id>
		<title>File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%) 2.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Calculating_the_daily_fat_percentage_(DF%25)_2.jpg&amp;diff=5048"/>
		<updated>2026-06-29T11:51:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Calculating_the_daily_fat_percentage_(DF%25).jpg&amp;diff=5047</id>
		<title>File:Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%).jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Calculating_the_daily_fat_percentage_(DF%25).jpg&amp;diff=5047"/>
		<updated>2026-06-29T11:48:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Calculating the daily fat percentage (DF%)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Image_A.png&amp;diff=5046</id>
		<title>File:Image A.png</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Image_A.png&amp;diff=5046"/>
		<updated>2026-06-29T11:42:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Data required and the calculation procedure for deriving the estimated 24 h milk fat percentage from a single sample&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5045</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5045"/>
		<updated>2026-06-23T09:49:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Recommendations for Herd Management */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website at: https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-central-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file at: https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file including measures here at: https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Central-Health-Key-2018-addinfo-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae is fully eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10% of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than 200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore, information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence, bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages, but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused. When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June 2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average 0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al., 2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2 Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9; HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking. The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted. Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement – Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1. Observe the foot position and placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
* Directly behind the cow such that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
* Left of the cow for a side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
* Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2. Record the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1. Position yourself behind the cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2. Ask the producer to shift the cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a. &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
* First walk from the right to the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b. &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
* If the cow does not respond to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c. &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
* If this still does not work, poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3. Pay attention to how the cow shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d. &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe if the UNEVEN indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.  &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the foot position and placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4. Record presence of behavioural indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège, Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3: Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Definition and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the behavioral activity of ruminants that involves regurgitation, chewing and swallowing of partially digested feed (adapted after Welch 1982, Ruckebusch, 1988).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination cycles or events&#039;&#039;&#039;: a sequence of rhythmic chewing motions, starting with the regurgitation of a bolus and ending with the re-swallowing of that bolus (after Nørgaard, 2003; Schirmann et al., 2009) (See Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Inter-event or inter-cycle period for rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the period that starts when the bolus is swallowed and ends when the next bolus is regurgitated (Nørgaaard, 2003; Schirmann et al 2009). May be between 3 and 8 seconds (Rutter, 2000; Nørgaard, 2003). &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination bout&#039;&#039;&#039;: a series of rumination events that are separated only by the inter-event intervals required for the swallowing of a bolus and regurgitation of the next bolus. &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Inter-bout interval for rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the period of time between rumination bouts. The exact period of time that must elapse after swallowing of the last bolus for it to be deemed that the bout has ended, has not been defined, but has been variously described as being between 3 and 7.5 minutes (Dado and Allen, 1994; Nørgaard, 2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination time&#039;&#039;&#039;: the total rumination time within a specified time interval (typically calculated for 1 hour or 1-day periods). This is the sum of the rumination bouts (i.e. rumination events and inter-event intervals&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section 7-Figure 1.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Terminology of rumination.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Source: Schirmann et al., (2009), Nørgaard, (2003) and Ruckebusch, (1988)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https://&amp;amp;#x20;doi&amp;amp;#x20;.org/&amp;amp;#x20;10&amp;amp;#x20;.2527/&amp;amp;#x20;jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended for stakeholders using sensor-derived data from dairy cows. They provide recommendations for recording, processing, integrating, and standardising data across sensors, and guidance on deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating those functional traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, there is limited research highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and rapidly recover to its baseline behavioural pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other variables such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, feeding, drinking). It should be explicitly stated that sensor-derived phenotypic traits are proxy measurements, inferred from behavioural patterns to reflect underlying biological states and are not equivalent to veterinary diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information are needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in [https://github.com/adewg/ICAR. https://github.com/adewg/ICAR.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to [https://wiki.interbull.org/public/beef_guidelines#A2.1_Format ICAR Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals where this cannot be avoided. In such cases, this should be recorded for subsequent verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Where alternative coding systems are used, mappings to ICAR/Interbull codes should be documented. Refer to [https://interbull.org/ib/icarbreedcodes breed codes]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farm Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modelling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor was used on a different animal, it is important that the information provided can be linked to the correct animal. Although considered a minimal risk, duplicate animal IDs have been observed in dairy herds and could lead to inaccurate recording of phenotypic traits. Therefore, this is a recommended step to enhance data collection accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to customers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of session with complete data collection) should also be provided. This applies to any other animal based or sensor-derived information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific projects..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The above specified data requirements and arrangements specified for rumination also apply to other behavioral traits measured in minutes (e.g. eating and lying), including associated metadata and aggregation rules such as the total number of measurements per days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations: ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as oestrus detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behaviour assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behaviour, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected sensor information such as eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alerts (e.g., oestrus detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using an official external animal identifier (e.g. a national recording scheme or breed registry), or whether a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioural metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioural values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The primary trait evaluated is Rumination Time (min/day). In addition to absolute levels, metrics such as mean, standard deviation, or changes within defined time windows may also be considered. Further sets of variables are currently studied as indicators of overall resilience. This framework considers variability in longitudinal traits, such as rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. These longitudinal patterns should be evaluated within lactations and across successive lactations. Examples of studies that define resilience using longitudinal behavioural data include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlours, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to or in an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to or placed in the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “calibration period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to or placed in the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); days in milk (DIM); and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Linking rumination data to functional traits for genetic evaluation remains challenging, as genetic correlations are not yet well established and the evidence base is still limited. Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations presents challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensor systems, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensor system are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition. Data governance and legal compliance: multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal and regulatory frameworks, including appropriate provisions for privacy and confidentiality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance).&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time.&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background; and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (h[https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554 ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Open questions to follow up: ===&lt;br /&gt;
* If cows are culled before a minimum observation period, how should their rumination records be treated for analytical purposes? How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations).&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets.&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance).&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= ICAR/IDF Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS) =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is a crucial method for assessing the health and metabolic status of dairy cows by estimating their body fat reserves. Regular monitoring of BCS is essential for developing strategies for maintaining optimal body condition, health, welfare and productivity in dairy herds. This document provides standardized guidelines for BCS recording and use, emphasizing its applications in herd management, genetic evaluation, and welfare assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Defining Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is an indicator of the proportion of body fat in cows, providing a reliable measure of body reserves. It is assessed through visual or tactile appraisal and is rationalized into various numerical systems using different scales. The primary purpose of body conditions scoring is to evaluate the energy reserves in dairy cows, which are critical for their health, fertility, longevity, and productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS as an Indicator of Fat Reserve ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before the 1970s, there were no simple measures of a cow’s energy reserves or body condition. Body weight alone is not a reliable measure due to variations in frame size and gut fill. Currently BCS provides a more accurate assessment by focusing on body fat reserves, which are crucial for buffering cows during negative energy balance during early lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS Scoring Systems and Their Diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
A variety of BCS scales inside different systems are used globally, each tailored to specific purposes such as conformation scoring for genetic evaluation, herd management, welfare assessment, and others. The variability in scales can cause confusion when comparing targets and results across farms and breeding programs. Moreover, the precision of a BCS scale is determined by how many scoring categories it contains, reflecting also its intended use, not by the numerical range it spans. Commonly used scales are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-3 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used for welfare assessment (Welfare Quality®: Assessment protocol for cattle (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;0-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the UK and Ireland, developed by Jefferies (1961) for ewes and adapted for beef cattle by Lowman et al. (1973).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-10 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in New Zealand, developed by Roche et al. (2004).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-8 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in Australia, developed by Earle et al, (1977).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the US and European countries, with variants proposed by Wildman et al. (1982) and Ferguson et al. (1994). The Ferguson et al. (1994) scale with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-9 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used of conformation scoring programs to determine genetic differences among animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different countries use various BCS scales and associated systems based on local practices and requirements for specific purposes. Table 1 gives details on some of the most commonly used systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Details on some of the most commonly used systems&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Method&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United Kingdom&lt;br /&gt;
|0 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (11)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Mulvany (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|New Zealand&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (19)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Roche et al. (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 8&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (15)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Earle et al. (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Wildman et al. (1982)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Ferguson et al. (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Multiple&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 9&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (9)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|ICAR confirmation classification system]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Using Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Manual Assessment ===&lt;br /&gt;
Manual assessment of BCS involves palpating key body regions (e.g., ribs, spine, hips) to estimate fat and muscle reserves. This method remains reliable but is subject to assessor variability. Consistence in training assessors is crucial to reduce this variability. As differences between scorers, despite efforts to harmonize, can be expected, coded identification of assessors needs to be retained to support traceability, quality control and correct modeling of scores.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example for BCS Based on a 1-5 Scoring Scale ===&lt;br /&gt;
Detailed information describing the 1-5 scoring scale with 0.25 intervals (17 classes) were given by Edmonson et al. (1989). In Figure 1, the major elements for assigning the 5 major steps are given as an example.[[File:Section 7 Figure 8.1.jpg|center|frame|Figure 1: Example of an 1-5 BCS scale chart (Modified from Edmonson et al., 1989).]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Digital Tools ===&lt;br /&gt;
Three main levels of digital tools exist:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Use of digital tools to facilitate on-farm recording and documentation&#039;&#039;&#039;: Facilitates the use of standards when scoring the documentation and the recording of still visual assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-assisted assessments&#039;&#039;&#039;: Human assessors still doing the scoring but using devices to support manual assessment, replacing the human eye.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-driven assessments with vision-based sensor systems&#039;&#039;&#039;: Purely automatic sensor-based assessments that also allow daily on-farm BCS assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For tools of types 2 and 3, reference populations used to train them need to include sufficiently extreme animals in order to cover the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored. Well trained automated BCS recording systems using digital technologies, such as 3D imaging systems (i.e., tools of type 3) offer a more objective and consistent assessment of BCS, typically multiple daily scoring when cows exit the milking system. The frequent and consistent measurements enable detailed analysis for each cow within and across lactations including short term individual and group level management. While minimizing human error and variation, the performance of automated BCS sensor system depends, among other factors, on the training and validation of the models. Human observers should be well trained showing high inter-observer and intra-observer agreement to generate a suitable reference standard. However, technological limitations due to on-farm conditions still make it challenging to achieve full accuracy, particularly when compared with manual palpation. Recent advances in AI models will be crucial to improve accuracy (e.g., detection of outliers). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Use of BCS Scales ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conversion Between BCS Scales ===&lt;br /&gt;
Conversions between different scales should be used with caution. Simple mathematical conversions may not be accurate due to non-linear use of scales. Conversion methods ranked from least to most reliable ones are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Simultaneous Scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop conversion equations based on simultaneous scoring of large groups     of cows, covering the full range of variability in body condition. This is     the best option.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Aligning Calibrated BCS scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: An objective way to calibrate any BCS scale is to quantify the change in body     weight (kg) associated with a one-unit change in BCS. If such     relationships are available for different BCS scales, a direct and     biologically meaningful conversion can be established between them.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Distribution-Based Conversion&#039;&#039;&#039;: Map attributed scores to a common scale     using z-scores (Snell, 1965) based on the comparison of uses of scales, can     be used under the assumption that the underlying populations have similar distributions of body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Mathematical Conversion of Scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop purely mathematical conversions, to be used with extreme caution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversion methods should always work sufficiently also for extreme animals covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Body condition scoring plays a vital role in managing dairy herds, allowing farmers to adjust feeding strategies and monitor metabolic health. Frequent BCS assessments help identify cows that are either losing or gaining condition too quickly, which may indicate underlying health or nutritional issues. Table 2 outlines various BCS scales proposed for specific purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Purpose of example BCS Scale.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Purpose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;BCS Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Frequency&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feeding advice&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Frequent and longitudinal&lt;br /&gt;
|Identification of cows with BCS change, indicating potential health problems and allowing optimization of feeding&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of metabolic disturbance&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Before and after calving and at least 2 times before peak of lactation (~50 DIM)&lt;br /&gt;
|Enables detection of BCS changes within cow during different stages of lactation in the herd &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Welfare assessment&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (3)&lt;br /&gt;
|As frequently as possible&lt;br /&gt;
|Detect general status of cows (thin-normal-fat). Focus on identification of proportion of cows with unacceptable BCS that is indicator of and risk factor for diseases and disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 outlines the recommended frequency for BCS assessment based on the key stages in the cow’s lactation cycle. For metabolic risk assessment and nutritional management, the within cow differences in BCS between measurement moments should be calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Recommendations for the frequency of BCS assessments.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Moment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pre-calving&lt;br /&gt;
|Approximately 3 weeks before calving to ensure optimal condition&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Early lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Close monitoring at calving/fresh cow&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Peak lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of nadir in BCS&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dry off period&lt;br /&gt;
|Assess 7-8 weeks before calving to adjust feeding as needed&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An optimal recording scheme could include dry off, pre-calving, calving, early lactation/pre-service, 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; service, pregnancy check, and late lactation. A representative random stratified sample of cows representing all lactations should be measured at key stages to ensure effective assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Individual Cow Management ==&lt;br /&gt;
For individual cow management, BCS can be used as a trouble-shooting tool to recognize that an adjustment of the feeding program is required or to identify health concerns. For example, cows that drop below a certain BCS threshold or show a drop respectively increase in BCS across key stages of lactation may require increased respectively reduced energy intake, while those with higher-than-recommended scores might benefit from a restricted diet. These measures are essential for improving not only productivity but also fertility, feed efficiency, longevity, and overall well-being in dairy herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Detecting the dynamics of BCS during and between lactations is required for individual cow management, therefore recording with sufficient granularity (i.e., more than five classes) and repeated recordings to enable detection of body condition changes are recommended. As an example, one can mention the Ferguson et al. (1994) scale from 1 to 5 with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Developing optimal BCS lactation curves based on breeds and management systems can help farmers monitor changes over the lactation for individual cows. Automated on-farm BCS allows for earlier detection of deviating BCS from target values and short-term operational decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Genetic Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is recognized as an intermediate optimum trait in genetic selection. Incorporating BCS data into genetic evaluations can enhance breeding programs, particularly for selecting cows with a more favorable balance between milk production and metabolic health (see Table 3). The use of BCS as an auxiliary trait is common in many genetic evaluation systems (e.g., for fertility). Regular and accurate BCS data collection allows for better selection within herd and ultimately contributes to long-term herd sustainability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Current practice involves recording BCS once in a lifetime during the first lactation using the same 1-9 scale as for linear scores as explained by the ICAR Guidelines for Conformation Traits. For genetic evaluation of BCS changes, it is recommended that BCS is recorded on all cows frequently throughout their lives. Even if extending the existing scale to additional recording, simpler scales, but with at least a 5-class scale could suffice. Repeated records of BCS can also be useful for deriving and analyzing novel traits such as resilience and resource allocation. BCS changes based on BCS recorded before calving and after calving or twice in early lactation can be used as an auxiliary trait for the metabolic status of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Welfare Monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Current practice in welfare monitoring BCS systems involves using a 3-class scale, which is considered sufficient for detecting the general status of cows (thin, normal, or fat) on a farm or group of farms. The boundaries of these broad categories should be defined with caution, as the expected BCS can vary substantially with breed, stage of lactation, and other cow-specific characteristics. Because assessment is only conducted periodically (e.g., once per year) and individual scores expressed as a summary for the herd (e.g., % of fat or thin cows) it is crucial to sample a representative group of animals, including recording relevant elements such as parity and lactation stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To maximize synergies with herd and individual cow management and breeding, it is more beneficial for welfare to assess all animals. This allows the detection of individuals with specific welfare issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Additional Important Considerations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional Data to be Recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the recorded BCS, the following information is recommended to be recorded: unique Animal ID, Herd ID, breed, date of recording, assessor-ID, BCS Scoring System (linked to a comprehensive description of the system), most recent calving date, and parity number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of Assessors ===&lt;br /&gt;
An important element is the training of assessors. They need to have a clear understanding of and training on the respective BCS Scoring System. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) along with the scoring chart and ensured comprehensive and regular training on utilizing these resources effectively need to be established. Regular and frequent harmonization between assessors is essential. Best practice is for different assessors to score the same farm(s), enabling harmonization. The use of digital resources is strongly recommended, as they can generate high‑quality training materials that facilitate assessor calibration, especially for identifying extremes. Frequent evaluation of both inter‑ and intra‑assessor repeatability is particularly important for research studies and genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking and Use for Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management, information on individual cows could be of less importance. However, to effectively benchmark, manage herds, and genetically evaluate animals, it is crucial to centralize the collected information into a central database. Benchmarking enables comparisons among farms and the identification of areas for improvement. For meaningful comparisons between herds, also for management purposes, factors such as assessment systems used, assessment conditions such as frequency, assessor identity, but also a summary of information from individual records such as lactation stages, parity numbers, etc. must be recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information ===&lt;br /&gt;
For further details, please refer to Gengler et al. (2024) and to the workshop “Recording and evaluation of BCS and its relationship with health and welfare” held in Montreal on the 31st of May 2022, organised by the “ICAR–IDF Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines”..&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by a “Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines” which was composed out of members of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group and the IDF Standing Committee of Health and Welfare as well as members of other ICAR Groups and international experts. We would like to thank also the participants can contributors to the ICAR-IDF webinar in Montreal 2022 for their valuable contribution. The c&#039;&#039;orresponding author and leader of elaboration of these guidelines is&#039;&#039; [mailto:Nicolas.gengler@uliege.be nicolas.gengler@uliege.be].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Citation of guideline&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gengler, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1,&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Gyawali, A.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Brito, L.F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Bewley, J. M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Cole, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, de Jong, G.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Fourdraine, R.H.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Friggens, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Haskell, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Heringstad, B.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Kelton, D.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Pryce, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Sievert, S.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stock, K. F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stephen, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Vasseur, E.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Klaas, I.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner, C&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;.18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;. 2025. ICAR Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Aashish Gywali, LMU, Germany&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;5CDCB, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;CRV, Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;INRAE, France&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;University of Guelph, Canada&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Agriculture Victoria Research, Australia&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;National DHIA &amp;amp; DHIA Services, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy New Zealand, New Zealand&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5044</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5044"/>
		<updated>2026-06-19T10:38:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Instructions for a tie-stall barn */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website at: https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-central-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file at: https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file including measures here at: https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Central-Health-Key-2018-addinfo-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae is fully eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10% of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than 200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore, information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence, bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages, but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused. When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June 2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average 0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al., 2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2 Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9; HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking. The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted. Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement – Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1. Observe the foot position and placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
* Directly behind the cow such that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
* Left of the cow for a side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
* Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2. Record the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1. Position yourself behind the cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2. Ask the producer to shift the cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a. &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
* First walk from the right to the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b. &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
* If the cow does not respond to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c. &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
* If this still does not work, poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3. Pay attention to how the cow shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d. &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe if the UNEVEN indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.  &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the foot position and placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4. Record presence of behavioural indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège, Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3: Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Definition and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the behavioral activity of ruminants that involves regurgitation, chewing and swallowing of partially digested feed (adapted after Welch 1982, Ruckebusch, 1988).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination cycles or events&#039;&#039;&#039;: a sequence of rhythmic chewing motions, starting with the regurgitation of a bolus and ending with the re-swallowing of that bolus (after Nørgaard, 2003; Schirmann et al., 2009) (See Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Inter-event or inter-cycle period for rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the period that starts when the bolus is swallowed and ends when the next bolus is regurgitated (Nørgaaard, 2003; Schirmann et al 2009). May be between 3 and 8 seconds (Rutter, 2000; Nørgaard, 2003). &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination bout&#039;&#039;&#039;: a series of rumination events that are separated only by the inter-event intervals required for the swallowing of a bolus and regurgitation of the next bolus. &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Inter-bout interval for rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the period of time between rumination bouts. The exact period of time that must elapse after swallowing of the last bolus for it to be deemed that the bout has ended, has not been defined, but has been variously described as being between 3 and 7.5 minutes (Dado and Allen, 1994; Nørgaard, 2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination time&#039;&#039;&#039;: the total rumination time within a specified time interval (typically calculated for 1 hour or 1-day periods). This is the sum of the rumination bouts (i.e. rumination events and inter-event intervals&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section 7-Figure 1.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 1. Terminology of rumination.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Source: Schirmann et al., (2009), Nørgaard, (2003) and Ruckebusch, (1988)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https://&amp;amp;#x20;doi&amp;amp;#x20;.org/&amp;amp;#x20;10&amp;amp;#x20;.2527/&amp;amp;#x20;jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended for stakeholders using sensor-derived data from dairy cows. They provide recommendations for recording, processing, integrating, and standardising data across sensors, and guidance on deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating those functional traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, there is limited research highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and rapidly recover to its baseline behavioural pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other variables such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, feeding, drinking). It should be explicitly stated that sensor-derived phenotypic traits are proxy measurements, inferred from behavioural patterns to reflect underlying biological states and are not equivalent to veterinary diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information are needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in [https://github.com/adewg/ICAR. https://github.com/adewg/ICAR.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to [https://wiki.interbull.org/public/beef_guidelines#A2.1_Format ICAR Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals where this cannot be avoided. In such cases, this should be recorded for subsequent verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Where alternative coding systems are used, mappings to ICAR/Interbull codes should be documented. Refer to [https://interbull.org/ib/icarbreedcodes breed codes]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farm Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modelling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor was used on a different animal, it is important that the information provided can be linked to the correct animal. Although considered a minimal risk, duplicate animal IDs have been observed in dairy herds and could lead to inaccurate recording of phenotypic traits. Therefore, this is a recommended step to enhance data collection accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to customers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of session with complete data collection) should also be provided. This applies to any other animal based or sensor-derived information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific projects..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The above specified data requirements and arrangements specified for rumination also apply to other behavioral traits measured in minutes (e.g. eating and lying), including associated metadata and aggregation rules such as the total number of measurements per days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations: ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as oestrus detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behaviour assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behaviour, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected sensor information such as eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alerts (e.g., oestrus detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using an official external animal identifier (e.g. a national recording scheme or breed registry), or whether a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioural metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioural values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The primary trait evaluated is Rumination Time (min/day). In addition to absolute levels, metrics such as mean, standard deviation, or changes within defined time windows may also be considered. Further sets of variables are currently studied as indicators of overall resilience. This framework considers variability in longitudinal traits, such as rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. These longitudinal patterns should be evaluated within lactations and across successive lactations. Examples of studies that define resilience using longitudinal behavioural data include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlours, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to or in an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to or placed in the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “calibration period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to or placed in the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); days in milk (DIM); and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Linking rumination data to functional traits for genetic evaluation remains challenging, as genetic correlations are not yet well established and the evidence base is still limited. Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations presents challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensor systems, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensor system are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition. Data governance and legal compliance: multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal and regulatory frameworks, including appropriate provisions for privacy and confidentiality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance).&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time.&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background; and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (h[https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554 ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Open questions to follow up: ===&lt;br /&gt;
* If cows are culled before a minimum observation period, how should their rumination records be treated for analytical purposes? How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations).&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets.&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance).&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= ICAR/IDF Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS) =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is a crucial method for assessing the health and metabolic status of dairy cows by estimating their body fat reserves. Regular monitoring of BCS is essential for developing strategies for maintaining optimal body condition, health, welfare and productivity in dairy herds. This document provides standardized guidelines for BCS recording and use, emphasizing its applications in herd management, genetic evaluation, and welfare assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Defining Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is an indicator of the proportion of body fat in cows, providing a reliable measure of body reserves. It is assessed through visual or tactile appraisal and is rationalized into various numerical systems using different scales. The primary purpose of body conditions scoring is to evaluate the energy reserves in dairy cows, which are critical for their health, fertility, longevity, and productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS as an Indicator of Fat Reserve ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before the 1970s, there were no simple measures of a cow’s energy reserves or body condition. Body weight alone is not a reliable measure due to variations in frame size and gut fill. Currently BCS provides a more accurate assessment by focusing on body fat reserves, which are crucial for buffering cows during negative energy balance during early lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS Scoring Systems and Their Diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
A variety of BCS scales inside different systems are used globally, each tailored to specific purposes such as conformation scoring for genetic evaluation, herd management, welfare assessment, and others. The variability in scales can cause confusion when comparing targets and results across farms and breeding programs. Moreover, the precision of a BCS scale is determined by how many scoring categories it contains, reflecting also its intended use, not by the numerical range it spans. Commonly used scales are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-3 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used for welfare assessment (Welfare Quality®: Assessment protocol for cattle (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;0-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the UK and Ireland, developed by Jefferies (1961) for ewes and adapted for beef cattle by Lowman et al. (1973).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-10 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in New Zealand, developed by Roche et al. (2004).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-8 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in Australia, developed by Earle et al, (1977).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the US and European countries, with variants proposed by Wildman et al. (1982) and Ferguson et al. (1994). The Ferguson et al. (1994) scale with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-9 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used of conformation scoring programs to determine genetic differences among animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different countries use various BCS scales and associated systems based on local practices and requirements for specific purposes. Table 1 gives details on some of the most commonly used systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Details on some of the most commonly used systems&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Method&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United Kingdom&lt;br /&gt;
|0 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (11)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Mulvany (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|New Zealand&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (19)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Roche et al. (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 8&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (15)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Earle et al. (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Wildman et al. (1982)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Ferguson et al. (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Multiple&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 9&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (9)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|ICAR confirmation classification system]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Using Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Manual Assessment ===&lt;br /&gt;
Manual assessment of BCS involves palpating key body regions (e.g., ribs, spine, hips) to estimate fat and muscle reserves. This method remains reliable but is subject to assessor variability. Consistence in training assessors is crucial to reduce this variability. As differences between scorers, despite efforts to harmonize, can be expected, coded identification of assessors needs to be retained to support traceability, quality control and correct modeling of scores.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example for BCS Based on a 1-5 Scoring Scale ===&lt;br /&gt;
Detailed information describing the 1-5 scoring scale with 0.25 intervals (17 classes) were given by Edmonson et al. (1989). In Figure 1, the major elements for assigning the 5 major steps are given as an example.[[File:Section 7 Figure 8.1.jpg|center|frame|Figure 1: Example of an 1-5 BCS scale chart (Modified from Edmonson et al., 1989).]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Digital Tools ===&lt;br /&gt;
Three main levels of digital tools exist:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Use of digital tools to facilitate on-farm recording and documentation&#039;&#039;&#039;: Facilitates the use of standards when scoring the documentation and the recording of still visual assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-assisted assessments&#039;&#039;&#039;: Human assessors still doing the scoring but using devices to support manual assessment, replacing the human eye.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-driven assessments with vision-based sensor systems&#039;&#039;&#039;: Purely automatic sensor-based assessments that also allow daily on-farm BCS assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For tools of types 2 and 3, reference populations used to train them need to include sufficiently extreme animals in order to cover the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored. Well trained automated BCS recording systems using digital technologies, such as 3D imaging systems (i.e., tools of type 3) offer a more objective and consistent assessment of BCS, typically multiple daily scoring when cows exit the milking system. The frequent and consistent measurements enable detailed analysis for each cow within and across lactations including short term individual and group level management. While minimizing human error and variation, the performance of automated BCS sensor system depends, among other factors, on the training and validation of the models. Human observers should be well trained showing high inter-observer and intra-observer agreement to generate a suitable reference standard. However, technological limitations due to on-farm conditions still make it challenging to achieve full accuracy, particularly when compared with manual palpation. Recent advances in AI models will be crucial to improve accuracy (e.g., detection of outliers). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Use of BCS Scales ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conversion Between BCS Scales ===&lt;br /&gt;
Conversions between different scales should be used with caution. Simple mathematical conversions may not be accurate due to non-linear use of scales. Conversion methods ranked from least to most reliable ones are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Simultaneous Scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop conversion equations based on simultaneous scoring of large groups of cows, covering the full range of variability in body condition. This is the best option.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Aligning Calibrated BCS scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: An objective way to calibrate any BCS scale is to quantify the change in body weight (kg) associated with a one-unit change in BCS. If such relationships are available for different BCS scales, a direct and biologically meaningful conversion can be established between them.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Distribution-Based Conversion&#039;&#039;&#039;: Map attributed scores to a common scale using z-scores (Snell, 1965) based on the comparison of uses of scales, can be used under the assumption that the underlying populations have similar distributions of body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Mathematical Conversion of Scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop purely mathematical conversions, to be used with extreme caution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversion methods should always work sufficiently also for extreme animals covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Body condition scoring plays a vital role in managing dairy herds, allowing farmers to adjust feeding strategies and monitor metabolic health. Frequent BCS assessments help identify cows that are either losing or gaining condition too quickly, which may indicate underlying health or nutritional issues. Table 2 outlines various BCS scales proposed for specific purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Purpose of example BCS Scale.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Purpose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;BCS Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Frequency&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feeding advice&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Frequent and longitudinal&lt;br /&gt;
|Identification of cows with BCS change, indicating potential health problems and allowing optimization of feeding&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of metabolic disturbance&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Before and after calving and at least 2 times before peak of lactation (~50 DIM)&lt;br /&gt;
|Enables detection of BCS changes within cow during different stages of lactation in the herd &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Welfare assessment&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (3)&lt;br /&gt;
|Detect general status of cows (thin-normal-fat)&lt;br /&gt;
|Focus on identification of proportion of cows with unacceptable BCS that is indicator of and risk factor for diseases and disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 outlines the recommended frequency for BCS assessment based on the key stages in the cow’s lactation cycle. For metabolic risk assessment and nutritional management, the within cow differences in BCS between measurement moments should be calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Recommendations for the frequency of BCS assessments.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Moment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pre-calving&lt;br /&gt;
|Approximately 3 weeks before calving to ensure optimal condition&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Early lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Close monitoring at calving/fresh cow&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Peak lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of nadir in BCS&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dry off period&lt;br /&gt;
|Assess 7-8 weeks before calving to adjust feeding as needed&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An optimal recording scheme could include dry off, pre-calving, calving, early lactation/pre-service, 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; service, pregnancy check, and late lactation. A representative random stratified sample of cows representing all lactations should be measured at key stages to ensure effective assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Individual Cow Management ==&lt;br /&gt;
For individual cow management, BCS can be used as a trouble-shooting tool to recognize that an adjustment of the feeding program is required or to identify health concerns. For example, cows that drop below a certain BCS threshold or show a drop respectively increase in BCS across key stages of lactation may require increased respectively reduced energy intake, while those with higher-than-recommended scores might benefit from a restricted diet. These measures are essential for improving not only productivity but also fertility, feed efficiency, longevity, and overall well-being in dairy herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Detecting the dynamics of BCS during and between lactations is required for individual cow management, therefore recording with sufficient granularity (i.e., more than five classes) and repeated recordings to enable detection of body condition changes are recommended. As an example, one can mention the Ferguson et al. (1994) scale from 1 to 5 with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Developing optimal BCS lactation curves based on breeds and management systems can help farmers monitor changes over the lactation for individual cows. Automated on-farm BCS allows for earlier detection of deviating BCS from target values and short-term operational decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Genetic Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is recognized as an intermediate optimum trait in genetic selection. Incorporating BCS data into genetic evaluations can enhance breeding programs, particularly for selecting cows with a more favorable balance between milk production and metabolic health (see Table 3). The use of BCS as an auxiliary trait is common in many genetic evaluation systems (e.g., for fertility). Regular and accurate BCS data collection allows for better selection within herd and ultimately contributes to long-term herd sustainability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Current practice involves recording BCS once in a lifetime during the first lactation using the same 1-9 scale as for linear scores as explained by the ICAR Guidelines for Conformation Traits. For genetic evaluation of BCS changes, it is recommended that BCS is recorded on all cows frequently throughout their lives. Even if extending the existing scale to additional recording, simpler scales, but with at least a 5-class scale could suffice. Repeated records of BCS can also be useful for deriving and analyzing novel traits such as resilience and resource allocation. BCS changes based on BCS recorded before calving and after calving or twice in early lactation can be used as an auxiliary trait for the metabolic status of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Welfare Monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Current practice in welfare monitoring BCS systems involves using a 3-class scale, which is considered sufficient for detecting the general status of cows (thin, normal, or fat) on a farm or group of farms. The boundaries of these broad categories should be defined with caution, as the expected BCS can vary substantially with breed, stage of lactation, and other cow-specific characteristics. Because assessment is only conducted periodically (e.g., once per year) and individual scores expressed as a summary for the herd (e.g., % of fat or thin cows) it is crucial to sample a representative group of animals, including recording relevant elements such as parity and lactation stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To maximize synergies with herd and individual cow management and breeding, it is more beneficial for welfare to assess all animals. This allows the detection of individuals with specific welfare issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Additional Important Considerations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional Data to be Recorded ===&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the recorded BCS, the following information is recommended to be recorded: unique Animal ID, Herd ID, breed, date of recording, assessor-ID, BCS Scoring System (linked to a comprehensive description of the system), most recent calving date, and parity number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of Assessors ===&lt;br /&gt;
An important element is the training of assessors. They need to have a clear understanding of and training on the respective BCS Scoring System. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) along with the scoring chart and ensured comprehensive and regular training on utilizing these resources effectively need to be established. Regular and frequent harmonization between assessors is essential. Best practice is for different assessors to score the same farm(s), enabling harmonization. The use of digital resources is strongly recommended, as they can generate high‑quality training materials that facilitate assessor calibration, especially for identifying extremes. Frequent evaluation of both inter‑ and intra‑assessor repeatability is particularly important for research studies and genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking and Use for Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management, information on individual cows could be of less importance. However, to effectively benchmark, manage herds, and genetically evaluate animals, it is crucial to centralize the collected information into a central database. Benchmarking enables comparisons among farms and the identification of areas for improvement. For meaningful comparisons between herds, also for management purposes, factors such as assessment systems used, assessment conditions such as frequency, assessor identity, but also a summary of information from individual records such as lactation stages, parity numbers, etc. must be recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information ===&lt;br /&gt;
For further details, please refer to Gengler et al. (2024) and to the workshop “Recording and evaluation of BCS and its relationship with health and welfare” held in Montreal on the 31st of May 2022, organised by the “ICAR–IDF Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines”..&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by a “Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines” which was composed out of members of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group and the IDF Standing Committee of Health and Welfare as well as members of other ICAR Groups and international experts. We would like to thank also the participants can contributors to the ICAR-IDF webinar in Montreal 2022 for their valuable contribution. The c&#039;&#039;orresponding author and leader of elaboration of these guidelines is&#039;&#039; [mailto:Nicolas.gengler@uliege.be nicolas.gengler@uliege.be].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Citation of guideline&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gengler, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1,&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Gyawali, A.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Brito, L.F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Bewley, J. M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Cole, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, de Jong, G.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Fourdraine, R.H.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Friggens, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Haskell, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Heringstad, B.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Kelton, D.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Pryce, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Sievert, S.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stock, K. F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stephen, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Vasseur, E.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Klaas, I.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner, C&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;.18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;. 2025. ICAR Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Aashish Gywali, LMU, Germany&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;5CDCB, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;CRV, Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;INRAE, France&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;University of Guelph, Canada&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Agriculture Victoria Research, Australia&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;National DHIA &amp;amp; DHIA Services, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy New Zealand, New Zealand&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5043</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5043"/>
		<updated>2026-06-19T08:50:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* BCS Scoring Systems and Their Diversity */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website at: https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-central-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file at: https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file including measures here at: https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Central-Health-Key-2018-addinfo-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A  healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It  is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production  efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae is fully eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10% of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than 200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore, information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence, bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages, but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused. When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June 2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average 0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al., 2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2 Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY: 1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9; HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking. The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is  obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted. Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement – Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1. Observe the foot position and placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
* Directly behind the cow such  that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
* Left of the cow for a  side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
* Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2. Record the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1. Position yourself behind the cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2. Ask the producer to shift the  cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a.  &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
* First walk from the right to  the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b. &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
* If the cow does not respond  to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on  the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move  left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c.  &lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
* If this still does not work,  poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3.       Pay attention to how the cow  shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe if the UNEVEN  indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight  on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe the foot position and  placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after  movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4.       Record presence of behavioural  indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding,  Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège,  Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3:  Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Definition and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the behavioral activity of ruminants that involves regurgitation, chewing and swallowing of partially digested feed (adapted after Welch 1982, Ruckebusch, 1988).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination cycles or events&#039;&#039;&#039;: a sequence of rhythmic chewing motions, starting with the regurgitation of a bolus and ending with the re-swallowing of that bolus (after Nørgaard, 2003; Schirmann et al., 2009) (See Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Inter-event or inter-cycle period for rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the period that starts when the bolus is swallowed and ends when the next bolus is regurgitated (Nørgaaard, 2003; Schirmann et al 2009). May be between 3 and 8 seconds (Rutter, 2000; Nørgaard, 2003). &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination bout&#039;&#039;&#039;: a series of rumination events that are separated only by the inter-event intervals required for the swallowing of a bolus and regurgitation of the next bolus. &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Inter-bout interval for rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the period of time between rumination bouts. The exact period of time that must elapse after swallowing of the last bolus for it to be deemed that the bout has ended, has not been defined, but has been variously described as being between 3 and 7.5 minutes (Dado and Allen, 1994; Nørgaard, 2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination time&#039;&#039;&#039;: the total rumination time within a specified time interval (typically calculated for 1 hour or 1-day periods). This is the sum of the rumination bouts (i.e. rumination events and inter-event intervals&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section 7-Figure 1.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 1.  Terminology of rumination.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Source: Schirmann et al., (2009), Nørgaard, (2003) and Ruckebusch, (1988)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https://&amp;amp;#x20;doi&amp;amp;#x20;.org/&amp;amp;#x20;10&amp;amp;#x20;.2527/&amp;amp;#x20;jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended for stakeholders using sensor-derived data from dairy cows. They provide recommendations for recording, processing, integrating, and standardising data across sensors, and guidance on deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating those functional traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, there is limited research highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and rapidly recover to its baseline behavioural pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other variables such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, feeding, drinking). It should be explicitly stated that sensor-derived phenotypic traits are proxy measurements, inferred from behavioural patterns to reflect underlying biological states and are not equivalent to veterinary diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information are needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in [https://github.com/adewg/ICAR. https://github.com/adewg/ICAR.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique  Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to [https://wiki.interbull.org/public/beef_guidelines#A2.1_Format ICAR Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals where this cannot be avoided. In such cases, this should be recorded for subsequent verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Where alternative coding systems are used, mappings to ICAR/Interbull codes should be documented. Refer to [https://interbull.org/ib/icarbreedcodes breed codes]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farm Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modelling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor was used on a different animal, it is important that the information provided can be linked to the correct animal. Although considered a minimal risk, duplicate animal IDs have been observed in dairy herds and could lead to inaccurate recording of phenotypic traits. Therefore, this is a recommended step to enhance data collection accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to customers.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of  session with complete data collection) should also be provided. This applies to any other animal based or sensor-derived information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific projects..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The above specified data requirements and arrangements specified for rumination also apply to other behavioral traits measured in minutes (e.g. eating and lying), including associated metadata and aggregation rules such as the total number of measurements per days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations: ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as oestrus detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behaviour assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behaviour, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected sensor information such as eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alerts (e.g., oestrus detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using an official external animal identifier (e.g. a national recording scheme or breed registry), or whether a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioural metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioural values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The primary trait evaluated is Rumination Time (min/day). In addition to absolute levels, metrics such as mean, standard deviation, or changes within defined time windows may also be considered. Further sets of variables are currently studied as indicators of overall resilience. This framework considers variability in longitudinal traits, such as rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. These longitudinal patterns should be evaluated within lactations and across successive lactations. Examples of studies that define resilience using longitudinal behavioural data include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlours, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to or in an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to or placed in the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “calibration period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to or placed in the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); days in milk (DIM); and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Linking rumination data to functional traits for genetic evaluation remains challenging, as genetic correlations are not yet well established and the evidence base is still limited. Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations presents challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensor systems, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensor system are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition. Data governance and legal compliance: multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal and regulatory frameworks, including appropriate provisions for privacy and confidentiality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance).&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time.&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background;  and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (h[https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554 ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Open questions to follow up: ===&lt;br /&gt;
* If cows are culled before a minimum observation period, how should their rumination records be treated for analytical purposes? How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations).&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets.&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance).&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= ICAR/IDF Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS) =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is a crucial method for assessing the health and metabolic status of dairy cows by estimating their body fat reserves. Regular monitoring of BCS is essential for developing strategies for maintaining optimal body condition, health, welfare and productivity in dairy herds. This document provides standardized guidelines for BCS recording and use, emphasizing its applications in herd management, genetic evaluation, and welfare assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Defining Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is an indicator of the proportion of body fat in cows, providing a reliable measure of body reserves. It is assessed through visual or tactile appraisal and is rationalized into various numerical systems using different scales. The primary purpose of body conditions scoring is to evaluate the energy reserves in dairy cows, which are critical for their health, fertility, longevity, and productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS as an Indicator of Fat Reserve ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before the 1970s, there were no simple measures of a cow’s energy reserves or body condition. Body weight alone is not a reliable measure due to variations in frame size and gut fill. Currently BCS provides a more accurate assessment by focusing on body fat reserves, which are crucial for buffering cows during negative energy balance during early lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS Scoring Systems and Their Diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
A variety of BCS scales inside different systems are used globally, each tailored to specific purposes such as conformation scoring for genetic evaluation, herd management, welfare assessment, and others. The variability in scales can cause confusion when comparing targets and results across farms and breeding programs. Moreover, the precision of a BCS scale is determined by how many scoring categories it contains, reflecting also its intended use, not by the numerical range it spans. Commonly used scales are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-3 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used for welfare assessment (Welfare Quality®: Assessment protocol for cattle (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;0-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the UK and Ireland, developed by Jefferies (1961) for ewes and adapted for beef cattle by Lowman et al. (1973).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-10 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in New Zealand, developed by Roche et al. (2004).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-8 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in Australia, developed by Earle et al, (1977).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the US and European countries, with variants proposed by Wildman et al. (1982) and Ferguson et al. (1994). The Ferguson et     al. (1994) scale with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-9 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used of conformation  scoring programs to determine genetic differences among animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different countries use various BCS scales and associated systems based on local practices and requirements for specific purposes. Table 1 gives details on some of the most commonly used systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Details on some of the most commonly used systems&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Method&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United Kingdom&lt;br /&gt;
|0 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (11)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Mulvany (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|New Zealand&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (19)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Roche et al. (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 8&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (15)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Earle et al. (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Wildman et al. (1982)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Ferguson et al. (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Multiple&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 9&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (9)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|ICAR confirmation classification system]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Using Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Manual Assessment ===&lt;br /&gt;
Manual assessment of BCS involves palpating key body regions (e.g., ribs, spine, hips) to estimate fat and muscle reserves. This method remains reliable but is subject to assessor variability. Consistence in training assessors is crucial to reduce this variability. As differences between scorers, despite efforts to harmonize, can be expected, coded identification of assessors needs to be retained to support traceability, quality control and correct modeling of scores.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example for BCS Based on a 1-5 Scoring Scale ===&lt;br /&gt;
Detailed information describing the 1-5 scoring scale with 0.25 intervals (17 classes) were given by Edmonson et al. (1989). In Figure 1, the major elements for assigning the 5 major steps are given as an example.[[File:Section 7 Figure 8.1.jpg|center|frame|Figure 1: Example of an 1-5 BCS scale chart (Modified from Edmonson et al., 1989).]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Digital Tools ===&lt;br /&gt;
Three main levels of digital tools exist:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Use of digital tools to facilitate on-farm recording and documentation&#039;&#039;&#039;: Facilitates the use of standards when scoring the documentation and the recording of still visual assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-assisted assessments&#039;&#039;&#039;: Human assessors still doing the scoring but using devices to support manual assessment, replacing the     human eye.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-driven assessments with vision-based sensor systems&#039;&#039;&#039;: Purely automatic sensor-based assessments that also allow daily on-farm BCS assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For tools of types 2 and 3, reference populations used to train them need to include sufficiently extreme animals in order to cover the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored. Well trained automated BCS recording systems using digital technologies, such as 3D imaging systems (i.e., tools of type 3) offer a more objective and consistent assessment of BCS, typically multiple daily scoring when cows exit the milking system. The frequent and consistent measurements enable detailed analysis for each cow within and across lactations including short term individual and group level management. While minimizing human error and variation, the performance of automated BCS sensor system depends, among other factors, on the training and validation of the models. Human observers should be well trained showing high inter-observer and intra-observer agreement to generate a suitable reference standard. However, technological limitations due to on-farm conditions still make it challenging to achieve full accuracy, particularly when compared with manual palpation. Recent advances in AI models will be crucial to improve accuracy (e.g., detection of outliers). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Use of BCS Scales ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conversion Between BCS Scales ===&lt;br /&gt;
Conversions between different scales should be used with caution. Simple mathematical conversions may not be accurate due to non-linear use of scales. Conversion methods ranked from least to most reliable ones are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Simultaneous Scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop conversion equations based on simultaneous scoring of large groups     of cows, covering the full range of variability in body condition. This is     the best option.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Aligning Calibrated BCS scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: An objective way to calibrate any BCS scale is to quantify the change in body weight (kg) associated with a one-unit change in BCS. If such     relationships are available for different BCS scales, a direct and     biologically meaningful conversion can be established between them.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Distribution-Based Conversion&#039;&#039;&#039;: Map attributed scores to a common scale     using z-scores (Snell, 1965) based on the comparison of uses of scales, can     be used under the assumption that the underlying populations have similar distributions of body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Mathematical Conversion of Scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop purely mathematical conversions, to be used with extreme caution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversion methods should always work sufficiently also for extreme animals covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Body condition scoring plays a vital role in managing dairy herds, allowing farmers to adjust feeding strategies and monitor metabolic health. Frequent BCS assessments help identify cows that are either losing or gaining condition too quickly, which may indicate underlying health or nutritional issues. Table 2 outlines various BCS scales proposed for specific purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Purpose of example BCS Scale.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Purpose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;BCS Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Frequency&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feeding advice&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Frequent and longitudinal&lt;br /&gt;
|Identification of cows with BCS change, indicating potential health problems and allowing optimization of feeding&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of metabolic disturbance&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Before and after calving and at least 2 times before peak of lactation (~50 DIM)&lt;br /&gt;
|Enables detection of BCS changes within cow during different stages of lactation in the herd &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Welfare assessment&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (3)&lt;br /&gt;
|Detect general status of cows (thin-normal-fat)&lt;br /&gt;
|Focus on identification of proportion of cows with unacceptable BCS that is indicator of and risk factor for diseases and disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 outlines the recommended frequency for BCS assessment based on the key stages in the cow’s lactation cycle. For metabolic risk assessment and nutritional management, the within cow differences in BCS between measurement moments should be calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Recommendations for the frequency of BCS assessments.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Moment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pre-calving&lt;br /&gt;
|Approximately 3 weeks before calving to ensure optimal condition&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Early lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Close monitoring at calving/fresh cow&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Peak lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of nadir in BCS&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dry off period&lt;br /&gt;
|Assess 7-8 weeks before calving to adjust feeding as needed&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An optimal recording scheme could include dry off, pre-calving, calving, early lactation/pre-service, 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; service, pregnancy check, and late lactation. A representative random stratified sample of cows representing all lactations should be measured at key stages to ensure effective assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;For further details, please refer to Gengler et al. (2024) and to the workshop “Recording and evaluation of BCS and its relationship with health and welfare” held in Montreal on the 31st of May 2022, organised by the “ICAR–IDF Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by a “Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines” which was composed out of members of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group and the IDF Standing Committee of Health and Welfare as well as members of other ICAR Groups and international experts. We would like to thank also the participants can contributors to the ICAR-IDF webinar in Montreal 2022 for their valuable contribution. The c&#039;&#039;orresponding author and leader of elaboration of these guidelines is&#039;&#039; [mailto:Nicolas.gengler@uliege.be nicolas.gengler@uliege.be].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Citation of guideline&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gengler, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1,&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Gyawali, A.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Brito, L.F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Bewley, J. M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Cole, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, de Jong, G.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Fourdraine, R.H.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Friggens, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Haskell, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Heringstad, B.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Kelton, D.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Pryce, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Sievert, S.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stock, K. F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stephen, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Vasseur, E.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Klaas, I.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner, C&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;.18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;. 2025. ICAR Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Aashish Gywali, LMU, Germany&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;5CDCB, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;CRV, Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;INRAE, France&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;University of Guelph, Canada&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Agriculture Victoria Research, Australia&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;National DHIA &amp;amp; DHIA Services, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy New Zealand, New Zealand&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5042</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5042"/>
		<updated>2026-06-15T10:30:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Informative Readings */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website at: https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-central-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file at: https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file including measures here at: https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Central-Health-Key-2018-addinfo-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A  healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It  is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production  efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis  causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of  infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows  primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank  SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all  infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all  infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly  eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae  is fully  eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the  environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical  mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not  necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10%  of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus  dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus  faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all  infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella  pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the  number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than  200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of  udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for  on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and  somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd  management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per  individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the  presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain  threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer  from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform  a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct  overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include  correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such  as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires  different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore,  information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in  operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence,  bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support  at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages,  but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If  available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean  of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might  be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering  milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different  groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an  average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes  which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative  management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk  somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC  on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count  (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price  payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high  levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many  cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused.  When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental  infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete  with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of  contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are  usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe  illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not  invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually  suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good  management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039;              In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039;  Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039;             Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?           &#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of  recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of  inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June,  2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number  cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted  and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June  2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary  treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red,  first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical  mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the  cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et  al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein  Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number  of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average  0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al.,  2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer  and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the  wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly  painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as  digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly  extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with  odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole  and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be  caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization  (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2        Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9;  HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is  normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking.  The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and  is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of  locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often  bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of  movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step  at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is  obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that  limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore  limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow  additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight  on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted.  Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion  with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the  ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement –  Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Observe the foot position and  placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three  positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Directly behind the cow such  that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Left of the cow for a  side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Record the presence of EDGE,  SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Position yourself behind the  cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Ask the producer to shift the  cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       First walk from the right to  the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If the cow does not respond  to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on  the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move  left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If this still does not work,  poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3.       Pay attention to how the cow  shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe if the UNEVEN  indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight  on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe the foot position and  placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after  movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4.       Record presence of behavioural  indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding,  Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège,  Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3:  Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Definition and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the behavioral activity of ruminants that involves regurgitation, chewing and swallowing of partially digested feed (adapted after Welch 1982, Ruckebusch, 1988).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination cycles or events&#039;&#039;&#039;: a sequence of rhythmic chewing motions, starting with the regurgitation of a bolus and ending with the re-swallowing of that bolus (after Nørgaard, 2003; Schirmann et al., 2009) (See Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Inter-event or inter-cycle period for rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the period that starts when the bolus is swallowed and ends when the next bolus is regurgitated (Nørgaaard, 2003; Schirmann et al 2009). May be between 3 and 8 seconds (Rutter, 2000; Nørgaard, 2003). &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination bout&#039;&#039;&#039;: a series of rumination events that are separated only by the inter-event intervals required for the swallowing of a bolus and regurgitation of the next bolus. &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Inter-bout interval for rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the period of time between rumination bouts. The exact period of time that must elapse after swallowing of the last bolus for it to be deemed that the bout has ended, has not been defined, but has been variously described as being between 3 and 7.5 minutes (Dado and Allen, 1994; Nørgaard, 2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination time&#039;&#039;&#039;: the total rumination time within a specified time interval (typically calculated for 1 hour or 1-day periods). This is the sum of the rumination bouts (i.e. rumination events and inter-event intervals&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section 7-Figure 1.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 1.  Terminology of rumination.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Source: Schirmann et al., (2009), Nørgaard, (2003) and Ruckebusch, (1988)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https://&amp;amp;#x20;doi&amp;amp;#x20;.org/&amp;amp;#x20;10&amp;amp;#x20;.2527/&amp;amp;#x20;jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended for stakeholders using sensor-derived data from dairy cows. They provide recommendations for recording, processing, integrating, and standardising data across sensors, and guidance on deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating those functional traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, there is limited research highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and rapidly recover to its baseline behavioural pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other variables such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, feeding, drinking). It should be explicitly stated that sensor-derived phenotypic traits are proxy measurements, inferred from behavioural patterns to reflect underlying biological states and are not equivalent to veterinary diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information are needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in [https://github.com/adewg/ICAR. https://github.com/adewg/ICAR.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique  Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to [https://wiki.interbull.org/public/beef_guidelines#A2.1_Format ICAR Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals where this cannot be avoided. In such cases, this should be recorded for subsequent verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Where alternative coding systems are used, mappings to ICAR/Interbull codes should be documented. Refer to [https://interbull.org/ib/icarbreedcodes breed codes]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farm Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modelling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor was used on a different animal, it is important that the information provided can be linked to the correct animal. Although considered a minimal risk, duplicate animal IDs have been observed in dairy herds and could lead to inaccurate recording of phenotypic traits. Therefore, this is a recommended step to enhance data collection accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to customers.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of  session with complete data collection) should also be provided. This applies to any other animal based or sensor-derived information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific projects..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The above specified data requirements and arrangements specified for rumination also apply to other behavioral traits measured in minutes (e.g. eating and lying), including associated metadata and aggregation rules such as the total number of measurements per days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations: ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as oestrus detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behaviour assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behaviour, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected sensor information such as eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alerts (e.g., oestrus detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using an official external animal identifier (e.g. a national recording scheme or breed registry), or whether a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioural metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioural values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The primary trait evaluated is Rumination Time (min/day). In addition to absolute levels, metrics such as mean, standard deviation, or changes within defined time windows may also be considered. Further sets of variables are currently studied as indicators of overall resilience. This framework considers variability in longitudinal traits, such as rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. These longitudinal patterns should be evaluated within lactations and across successive lactations. Examples of studies that define resilience using longitudinal behavioural data include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlours, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to or in an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to or placed in the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “calibration period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to or placed in the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); days in milk (DIM); and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Linking rumination data to functional traits for genetic evaluation remains challenging, as genetic correlations are not yet well established and the evidence base is still limited. Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations presents challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensor systems, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensor system are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition. Data governance and legal compliance: multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal and regulatory frameworks, including appropriate provisions for privacy and confidentiality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance).&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time.&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background;  and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (h[https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554 ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Open questions to follow up: ===&lt;br /&gt;
* If cows are culled before a minimum observation period, how should their rumination records be treated for analytical purposes? How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations).&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets.&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance).&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= ICAR/IDF Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS) =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is a crucial method for assessing the health and metabolic status of dairy cows by estimating their body fat reserves. Regular monitoring of BCS is essential for developing strategies for maintaining optimal body condition, health, welfare and productivity in dairy herds. This document provides standardized guidelines for BCS recording and use, emphasizing its applications in herd management, genetic evaluation, and welfare assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Defining Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is an indicator of the proportion of body fat in cows, providing a reliable measure of body reserves. It is assessed through visual or tactile appraisal and is rationalized into various numerical systems using different scales. The primary purpose of body conditions scoring is to evaluate the energy reserves in dairy cows, which are critical for their health, fertility, longevity, and productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS as an Indicator of Fat Reserve ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before the 1970s, there were no simple measures of a cow’s energy reserves or body condition. Body weight alone is not a reliable measure due to variations in frame size and gut fill. BCS provides a more accurate assessment by focusing on body fat reserves, which are crucial for buffering cows against negative energy balance during early lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS Scoring Systems and Their Diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
A variety of BCS scales inside different systems are used globally, each tailored to specific purposes such as conformation scoring for genetic evaluation, herd management, welfare assessment, and others. The variability in scales can cause confusion when comparing targets and results across farms and breeding programs. Moreover, the precision of BCS scales must be considered as defined by the number of used classes and not the range of the scales. Commonly scales used are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-3 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used for welfare assessment (Welfare Quality®: Assessment protocol for cattle (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;0-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the UK and Ireland, developed by     Jefferies (1961) for ewes and adapted for beef cattle by Lowman et al. (1973).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-10 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in New Zealand, developed by Roche et al. (2004).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-8 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in Australia, developed by Earle et al, (1977).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the US and European countries, with variants proposed by Wildman et al. (1982) and Ferguson et al. (1994). The Ferguson et     al. (1994) scale with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-9 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used of conformation  scoring programs to determine genetic differences among animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different countries use various BCS scales and associated systems based on local practices and requirements for specific purposes. Table 1 gives details on some of the most commonly used systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Details on some of the most commonly used systems&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Method&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United Kingdom&lt;br /&gt;
|0 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (11)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Mulvany (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|New Zealand&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (19)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Roche et al. (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 8&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (15)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Earle et al. (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Wildman et al. (1982)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Ferguson et al. (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Multiple&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 9&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (9)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|ICAR confirmation classification system]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Using Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Manual Assessment ===&lt;br /&gt;
Manual assessment of BCS involves palpating key body regions (e.g., ribs, spine, hips) to estimate fat and muscle reserves. This method remains reliable but is subject to assessor variability. Consistency in training assessors is crucial to reduce this variability. As differences between scorers, despite efforts to harmonize, can be expected, coded identification of assessors needs to be retained. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example for BCS Based on a 1-5 Scoring Scale ===&lt;br /&gt;
Detailed information describing the 1-5 scoring scale with 0.25 intervals (17 classes) were given by Edmonson et al. (1989). In Figure 1, the major elements for assigning the 5 major steps are given as an example.[[File:Section 7 Figure 8.1.jpg|center|frame|Figure 1: Example of an 1-5 BCS scale chart (Modified from Edmonson et al., 1989).]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Digital Tools ===&lt;br /&gt;
Three main levels of digital tools exist:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Use of digital tools to facilitate on-farm recording and documentation&#039;&#039;&#039;: Facilitates the use of standards when scoring the documentation and the recording of still visual assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-assisted assessments&#039;&#039;&#039;: Human assessors still doing the scoring but using devices to support manual assessment, replacing the     human eye.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-driven assessments with vision-based sensor systems&#039;&#039;&#039;: Purely automatic sensor-based assessments that also allow daily on-farm BCS assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For tools of types 2 and 3, reference populations need to include sufficiently extreme animals in order to develop prediction models covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Automated BCS recordings using digital technologies, such as 3D imaging systems (i.e., tools of type 3) offer a more objective and consistent assessment of BCS, typically multiple daily scoring when cows exit the milking system. The frequent and consistent measurements enable detailed analysis for each cow within and across lactations including short term individual and group level management. While minimizing human error and variation, the performance of automated BCS sensor system depends, among other factors, on the training and validation of the models. Human observers should be well trained showing high inter-observer and intra-observer agreement to generate a suitable reference standard. However, technological limitations due to on-farm conditions still make it challenging to achieve full accuracy, particularly when compared with manual palpation. Recent advances in AI models will be crucial to improve even more accuracy (e.g., detection of outliers).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Use of BCS Scales ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conversion Between BCS Scales ===&lt;br /&gt;
Conversions between different scales should be used with caution. Simple mathematical conversions may not be accurate due to non-linear use of scales. Conversion methods ranked from least to most reliable ones are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Mathematical Conversion of Scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop purely mathematical conversions, to be used with extreme caution.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Distribution-Based Conversion&#039;&#039;&#039;: Map attributed scores to a common scale using z-scores (Snell, 1965) based on the comparison of uses of scales, can be used under the assumption that the underlying populations have similar distributions of body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Aligning Calibrated BCS scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: An objective way to calibrate any BCS scale is to quantify the change in body weight (kg) associated with a one-unit change in BCS. If such     relationships are available for different BCS scales, a direct and biologically meaningful conversion can be established between them.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Simultaneous Scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop conversion equations based on simultaneous scoring of large groups of cows, covering the full range of variability in body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversion methods should always work sufficiently also for extreme animals covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Body condition scoring plays a vital role in managing dairy herds, allowing farmers to adjust feeding strategies and monitor metabolic health. Frequent BCS assessments help identify cows that are either losing or gaining condition too quickly, which may indicate underlying health or nutritional issues. Table 2 outlines various BCS scales proposed for specific purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Purpose of example BCS Scale.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Purpose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;BCS Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Frequency&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feeding advice&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Frequent and longitudinal&lt;br /&gt;
|Identification of cows with BCS change, indicating potential health problems and allowing optimization of feeding&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of metabolic disturbance&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Before and after calving and at least 2 times before peak of lactation (~50 DIM)&lt;br /&gt;
|Enables detection of BCS changes within cow during different stages of lactation in the herd &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Welfare assessment&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (3)&lt;br /&gt;
|Detect general status of cows (thin-normal-fat)&lt;br /&gt;
|Focus on identification of proportion of cows with unacceptable BCS that is indicator of and risk factor for diseases and disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 outlines the recommended frequency for BCS assessment based on the key stages in the cow’s lactation cycle. For metabolic risk assessment and nutritional management, the within cow differences in BCS between measurement moments should be calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Recommendations for the frequency of BCS assessments.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Moment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pre-calving&lt;br /&gt;
|Approximately 3 weeks before calving to ensure optimal condition&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Early lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Close monitoring at calving/fresh cow&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Peak lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of nadir in BCS&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dry off period&lt;br /&gt;
|Assess 7-8 weeks before calving to adjust feeding as needed&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An optimal recording scheme could include dry off, pre-calving, calving, early lactation/pre-service, 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; service, pregnancy check, and late lactation. A representative random stratified sample of cows representing all lactations should be measured at key stages to ensure effective assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;For further details, please refer to Gengler et al. (2024) and to the workshop “Recording and evaluation of BCS and its relationship with health and welfare” held in Montreal on the 31st of May 2022, organised by the “ICAR–IDF Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by a “Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines” which was composed out of members of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group and the IDF Standing Committee of Health and Welfare as well as members of other ICAR Groups and international experts. We would like to thank also the participants can contributors to the ICAR-IDF webinar in Montreal 2022 for their valuable contribution. The c&#039;&#039;orresponding author and leader of elaboration of these guidelines is&#039;&#039; [mailto:Nicolas.gengler@uliege.be nicolas.gengler@uliege.be].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Citation of guideline&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gengler, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1,&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Gyawali, A.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Brito, L.F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Bewley, J. M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Cole, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, de Jong, G.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Fourdraine, R.H.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Friggens, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Haskell, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Heringstad, B.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Kelton, D.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Pryce, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Sievert, S.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stock, K. F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stephen, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Vasseur, E.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Klaas, I.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner, C&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;.18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;. 2025. ICAR Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Aashish Gywali, LMU, Germany&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;5CDCB, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;CRV, Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;INRAE, France&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;University of Guelph, Canada&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Agriculture Victoria Research, Australia&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;National DHIA &amp;amp; DHIA Services, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy New Zealand, New Zealand&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5041</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5041"/>
		<updated>2026-06-15T10:17:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Part 2: Terminology */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website at: https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-central-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file at: https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file including measures here at: https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Central-Health-Key-2018-addinfo-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A  healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It  is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production  efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis  causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of  infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows  primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank  SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all  infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all  infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly  eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae  is fully  eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the  environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical  mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not  necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10%  of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus  dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus  faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all  infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella  pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the  number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than  200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of  udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for  on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and  somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd  management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per  individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the  presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain  threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer  from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform  a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct  overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include  correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such  as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires  different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore,  information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in  operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence,  bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support  at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages,  but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If  available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean  of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might  be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering  milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different  groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an  average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes  which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative  management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk  somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC  on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count  (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price  payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high  levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many  cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused.  When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental  infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete  with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of  contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are  usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe  illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not  invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually  suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good  management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039;              In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039;  Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039;             Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?           &#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of  recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of  inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June,  2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number  cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted  and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June  2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary  treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red,  first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical  mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the  cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et  al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein  Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number  of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average  0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al.,  2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer  and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the  wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly  painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as  digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly  extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with  odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole  and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be  caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization  (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2        Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9;  HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is  normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking.  The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and  is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of  locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often  bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of  movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step  at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is  obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that  limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore  limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow  additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight  on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted.  Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion  with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the  ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement –  Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Observe the foot position and  placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three  positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Directly behind the cow such  that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Left of the cow for a  side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Record the presence of EDGE,  SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Position yourself behind the  cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Ask the producer to shift the  cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       First walk from the right to  the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If the cow does not respond  to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on  the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move  left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If this still does not work,  poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3.       Pay attention to how the cow  shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe if the UNEVEN  indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight  on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe the foot position and  placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after  movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4.       Record presence of behavioural  indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding,  Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège,  Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3:  Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Definition and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the behavioral activity of ruminants that involves regurgitation, chewing and swallowing of partially digested feed (adapted after Welch 1982, Ruckebusch, 1988).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination cycles or events&#039;&#039;&#039;: a sequence of rhythmic chewing motions, starting with the regurgitation of a bolus and ending with the re-swallowing of that bolus (after Nørgaard, 2003; Schirmann et al., 2009) (See Figure 1).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Inter-event or inter-cycle period for rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the period that starts when the bolus is swallowed and ends when the next bolus is regurgitated (Nørgaaard, 2003; Schirmann et al 2009). May be between 3 and 8 seconds (Rutter, 2000; Nørgaard, 2003). &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination bout&#039;&#039;&#039;: a series of rumination events that are separated only by the inter-event intervals required for the swallowing of a bolus and regurgitation of the next bolus. &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Inter-bout interval for rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;: the period of time between rumination bouts. The exact period of time that must elapse after swallowing of the last bolus for it to be deemed that the bout has ended, has not been defined, but has been variously described as being between 3 and 7.5 minutes (Dado and Allen, 1994; Nørgaard, 2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination time&#039;&#039;&#039;: the total rumination time within a specified time interval (typically calculated for 1 hour or 1-day periods). This is the sum of the rumination bouts (i.e. rumination events and inter-event intervals&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section 7-Figure 1.jpg|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 1.  Terminology of rumination.&#039;&#039;&#039; &#039;&#039;&#039;Source: Schirmann et al., (2009), Nørgaard, (2003) and Ruckebusch, (1988)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1|center|frame|&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd.&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https:// doi .org/ 10 .2527/ jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended for stakeholders using sensor-derived data from dairy cows. They provide recommendations for recording, processing, integrating, and standardising data across sensors, and guidance on deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating those functional traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, there is limited research highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and rapidly recover to its baseline behavioural pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other variables such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, feeding, drinking). It should be explicitly stated that sensor-derived phenotypic traits are proxy measurements, inferred from behavioural patterns to reflect underlying biological states and are not equivalent to veterinary diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information is needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in [https://github.com/adewg/ICAR. https://github.com/adewg/ICAR.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique  Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to [https://wiki.interbull.org/public/beef_guidelines#A2.1_Format ICAR Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals where this cannot be avoided. In such cases, this should be recorded for subsequent verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Where alternative coding systems are used, mappings to ICAR/Interbull codes should be documented. Refer to [https://interbull.org/ib/icarbreedcodes breed codes]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farm Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modelling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor was used on a different animal, it is important that the information provided can be linked to the correct animal. Although considered a minimal risk, duplicate animal IDs have been observed in dairy herds and could lead to inaccurate recording of phenotypic traits. Therefore, this is a recommended step to enhance data collection accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to customers.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of  session with complete data collection) should also be provided. This applies to any other animal based or sensor-derived information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific projects..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The above specified data requirements and arrangements specified for rumination also apply to other behavioral traits measured in minutes (e.g. eating and lying), including associated metadata and aggregation rules such as the total number of measurements per days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as oestrus detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behaviour assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behaviour, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected sensor information such as eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alerts (e.g., oestrus detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using an official external animal identifier (e.g. a national recording scheme or breed registry), or whether a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioural metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioural values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The primary trait evaluated is Rumination Time (min/day). In addition to absolute levels, metrics such as mean, standard deviation, or changes within defined time windows may also be considered. Further sets of variables are currently studied as indicators of overall resilience. This framework considers variability in longitudinal traits, such as rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. These longitudinal patterns should be evaluated within lactations and across successive lactations. Examples of studies that define resilience using longitudinal behavioural data include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlours, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to or in an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to or placed in the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “calibration period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to or placed in the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); days in milk (DIM); and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Linking rumination data to functional traits for genetic evaluation remains challenging, as genetic correlations are not yet well established and the evidence base is still limited. Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations presents challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensor systems, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensor system are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition. Data governance and legal compliance: multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal and regulatory frameworks, including appropriate provisions for privacy and confidentiality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance).&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time.&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background;  and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (h[https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554 ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Open questions to follow up:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If cows are culled before a minimum observation period, how should their rumination records be treated for analytical purposes? How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations).&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets.&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance).&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= ICAR/IDF Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS) =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is a crucial method for assessing the health and metabolic status of dairy cows by estimating their body fat reserves. Regular monitoring of BCS is essential for developing strategies for maintaining optimal body condition, health, welfare and productivity in dairy herds. This document provides standardized guidelines for BCS recording and use, emphasizing its applications in herd management, genetic evaluation, and welfare assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Defining Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is an indicator of the proportion of body fat in cows, providing a reliable measure of body reserves. It is assessed through visual or tactile appraisal and is rationalized into various numerical systems using different scales. The primary purpose of body conditions scoring is to evaluate the energy reserves in dairy cows, which are critical for their health, fertility, longevity, and productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS as an Indicator of Fat Reserve ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before the 1970s, there were no simple measures of a cow’s energy reserves or body condition. Body weight alone is not a reliable measure due to variations in frame size and gut fill. BCS provides a more accurate assessment by focusing on body fat reserves, which are crucial for buffering cows against negative energy balance during early lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS Scoring Systems and Their Diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
A variety of BCS scales inside different systems are used globally, each tailored to specific purposes such as conformation scoring for genetic evaluation, herd management, welfare assessment, and others. The variability in scales can cause confusion when comparing targets and results across farms and breeding programs. Moreover, the precision of BCS scales must be considered as defined by the number of used classes and not the range of the scales. Commonly scales used are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-3 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used for welfare assessment (Welfare Quality®: Assessment protocol for cattle (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;0-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the UK and Ireland, developed by     Jefferies (1961) for ewes and adapted for beef cattle by Lowman et al. (1973).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-10 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in New Zealand, developed by Roche et al. (2004).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-8 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in Australia, developed by Earle et al, (1977).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the US and European countries, with variants proposed by Wildman et al. (1982) and Ferguson et al. (1994). The Ferguson et     al. (1994) scale with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-9 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used of conformation  scoring programs to determine genetic differences among animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different countries use various BCS scales and associated systems based on local practices and requirements for specific purposes. Table 1 gives details on some of the most commonly used systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Details on some of the most commonly used systems&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Method&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United Kingdom&lt;br /&gt;
|0 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (11)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Mulvany (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|New Zealand&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (19)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Roche et al. (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 8&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (15)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Earle et al. (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Wildman et al. (1982)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Ferguson et al. (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Multiple&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 9&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (9)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|ICAR confirmation classification system]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Using Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Manual Assessment ===&lt;br /&gt;
Manual assessment of BCS involves palpating key body regions (e.g., ribs, spine, hips) to estimate fat and muscle reserves. This method remains reliable but is subject to assessor variability. Consistency in training assessors is crucial to reduce this variability. As differences between scorers, despite efforts to harmonize, can be expected, coded identification of assessors needs to be retained. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example for BCS Based on a 1-5 Scoring Scale ===&lt;br /&gt;
Detailed information describing the 1-5 scoring scale with 0.25 intervals (17 classes) were given by Edmonson et al. (1989). In Figure 1, the major elements for assigning the 5 major steps are given as an example.[[File:Section 7 Figure 8.1.jpg|center|frame|Figure 1: Example of an 1-5 BCS scale chart (Modified from Edmonson et al., 1989).]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Digital Tools ===&lt;br /&gt;
Three main levels of digital tools exist:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Use of digital tools to facilitate on-farm recording and documentation&#039;&#039;&#039;: Facilitates the use of standards when scoring the documentation and the recording of still visual assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-assisted assessments&#039;&#039;&#039;: Human assessors still doing the scoring but using devices to support manual assessment, replacing the     human eye.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-driven assessments with vision-based sensor systems&#039;&#039;&#039;: Purely automatic sensor-based assessments that also allow daily on-farm BCS assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For tools of types 2 and 3, reference populations need to include sufficiently extreme animals in order to develop prediction models covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Automated BCS recordings using digital technologies, such as 3D imaging systems (i.e., tools of type 3) offer a more objective and consistent assessment of BCS, typically multiple daily scoring when cows exit the milking system. The frequent and consistent measurements enable detailed analysis for each cow within and across lactations including short term individual and group level management. While minimizing human error and variation, the performance of automated BCS sensor system depends, among other factors, on the training and validation of the models. Human observers should be well trained showing high inter-observer and intra-observer agreement to generate a suitable reference standard. However, technological limitations due to on-farm conditions still make it challenging to achieve full accuracy, particularly when compared with manual palpation. Recent advances in AI models will be crucial to improve even more accuracy (e.g., detection of outliers).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Use of BCS Scales ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conversion Between BCS Scales ===&lt;br /&gt;
Conversions between different scales should be used with caution. Simple mathematical conversions may not be accurate due to non-linear use of scales. Conversion methods ranked from least to most reliable ones are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Mathematical Conversion of Scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop purely mathematical conversions, to be used with extreme caution.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Distribution-Based Conversion&#039;&#039;&#039;: Map attributed scores to a common scale using z-scores (Snell, 1965) based on the comparison of uses of scales, can be used under the assumption that the underlying populations have similar distributions of body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Aligning Calibrated BCS scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: An objective way to calibrate any BCS scale is to quantify the change in body weight (kg) associated with a one-unit change in BCS. If such     relationships are available for different BCS scales, a direct and biologically meaningful conversion can be established between them.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Simultaneous Scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop conversion equations based on simultaneous scoring of large groups of cows, covering the full range of variability in body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversion methods should always work sufficiently also for extreme animals covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Body condition scoring plays a vital role in managing dairy herds, allowing farmers to adjust feeding strategies and monitor metabolic health. Frequent BCS assessments help identify cows that are either losing or gaining condition too quickly, which may indicate underlying health or nutritional issues. Table 2 outlines various BCS scales proposed for specific purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Purpose of example BCS Scale.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Purpose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;BCS Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Frequency&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feeding advice&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Frequent and longitudinal&lt;br /&gt;
|Identification of cows with BCS change, indicating potential health problems and allowing optimization of feeding&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of metabolic disturbance&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Before and after calving and at least 2 times before peak of lactation (~50 DIM)&lt;br /&gt;
|Enables detection of BCS changes within cow during different stages of lactation in the herd &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Welfare assessment&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (3)&lt;br /&gt;
|Detect general status of cows (thin-normal-fat)&lt;br /&gt;
|Focus on identification of proportion of cows with unacceptable BCS that is indicator of and risk factor for diseases and disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 outlines the recommended frequency for BCS assessment based on the key stages in the cow’s lactation cycle. For metabolic risk assessment and nutritional management, the within cow differences in BCS between measurement moments should be calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Recommendations for the frequency of BCS assessments.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Moment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pre-calving&lt;br /&gt;
|Approximately 3 weeks before calving to ensure optimal condition&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Early lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Close monitoring at calving/fresh cow&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Peak lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of nadir in BCS&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dry off period&lt;br /&gt;
|Assess 7-8 weeks before calving to adjust feeding as needed&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An optimal recording scheme could include dry off, pre-calving, calving, early lactation/pre-service, 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; service, pregnancy check, and late lactation. A representative random stratified sample of cows representing all lactations should be measured at key stages to ensure effective assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;For further details, please refer to Gengler et al. (2024) and to the workshop “Recording and evaluation of BCS and its relationship with health and welfare” held in Montreal on the 31st of May 2022, organised by the “ICAR–IDF Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by a “Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines” which was composed out of members of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group and the IDF Standing Committee of Health and Welfare as well as members of other ICAR Groups and international experts. We would like to thank also the participants can contributors to the ICAR-IDF webinar in Montreal 2022 for their valuable contribution. The c&#039;&#039;orresponding author and leader of elaboration of these guidelines is&#039;&#039; [mailto:Nicolas.gengler@uliege.be nicolas.gengler@uliege.be].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Citation of guideline&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gengler, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1,&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Gyawali, A.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Brito, L.F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Bewley, J. M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Cole, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, de Jong, G.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Fourdraine, R.H.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Friggens, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Haskell, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Heringstad, B.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Kelton, D.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Pryce, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Sievert, S.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stock, K. F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stephen, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Vasseur, E.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Klaas, I.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner, C&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;.18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;. 2025. ICAR Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Aashish Gywali, LMU, Germany&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;5CDCB, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;CRV, Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;INRAE, France&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;University of Guelph, Canada&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Agriculture Victoria Research, Australia&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;National DHIA &amp;amp; DHIA Services, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy New Zealand, New Zealand&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Section_7-Figure_1.jpg&amp;diff=5040</id>
		<title>File:Section 7-Figure 1.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Section_7-Figure_1.jpg&amp;diff=5040"/>
		<updated>2026-06-15T10:15:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Section 7-Figure 1&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5039</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5039"/>
		<updated>2026-06-13T23:20:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Disease Codes */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website at: https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-central-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file at: https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file including measures here at: https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Central-Health-Key-2018-addinfo-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A  healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It  is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production  efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis  causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of  infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows  primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank  SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all  infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all  infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly  eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae  is fully  eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the  environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical  mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not  necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10%  of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus  dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus  faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all  infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella  pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the  number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than  200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of  udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for  on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and  somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd  management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per  individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the  presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain  threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer  from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform  a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct  overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include  correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such  as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires  different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore,  information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in  operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence,  bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support  at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages,  but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If  available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean  of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might  be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering  milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different  groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an  average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes  which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative  management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk  somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC  on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count  (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price  payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high  levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many  cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused.  When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental  infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete  with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of  contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are  usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe  illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not  invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually  suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good  management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039;              In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039;  Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039;             Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?           &#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of  recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of  inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June,  2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number  cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted  and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June  2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary  treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red,  first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical  mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the  cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et  al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein  Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number  of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average  0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al.,  2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer  and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the  wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly  painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as  digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly  extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with  odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole  and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be  caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization  (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2        Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9;  HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is  normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking.  The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and  is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of  locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often  bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of  movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step  at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is  obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that  limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore  limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow  additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight  on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted.  Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion  with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the  ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement –  Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Observe the foot position and  placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three  positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Directly behind the cow such  that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Left of the cow for a  side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Record the presence of EDGE,  SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Position yourself behind the  cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Ask the producer to shift the  cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       First walk from the right to  the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If the cow does not respond  to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on  the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move  left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If this still does not work,  poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3.       Pay attention to how the cow  shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe if the UNEVEN  indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight  on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe the foot position and  placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after  movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4.       Record presence of behavioural  indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding,  Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège,  Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3:  Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1]]Figure 1. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https:// doi .org/ 10 .2527/ jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended for stakeholders using sensor-derived data from dairy cows. They provide recommendations for recording, processing, integrating, and standardising data across sensors, and guidance on deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating those functional traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, there is limited research highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and rapidly recover to its baseline behavioural pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other variables such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, feeding, drinking). It should be explicitly stated that sensor-derived phenotypic traits are proxy measurements, inferred from behavioural patterns to reflect underlying biological states and are not equivalent to veterinary diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information is needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in [https://github.com/adewg/ICAR. https://github.com/adewg/ICAR.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique  Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to [https://wiki.interbull.org/public/beef_guidelines#A2.1_Format ICAR Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals where this cannot be avoided. In such cases, this should be recorded for subsequent verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Where alternative coding systems are used, mappings to ICAR/Interbull codes should be documented. Refer to [https://interbull.org/ib/icarbreedcodes breed codes]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farm Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modelling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor was used on a different animal, it is important that the information provided can be linked to the correct animal. Although considered a minimal risk, duplicate animal IDs have been observed in dairy herds and could lead to inaccurate recording of phenotypic traits. Therefore, this is a recommended step to enhance data collection accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to customers.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of  session with complete data collection) should also be provided. This applies to any other animal based or sensor-derived information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific projects..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The above specified data requirements and arrangements specified for rumination also apply to other behavioral traits measured in minutes (e.g. eating and lying), including associated metadata and aggregation rules such as the total number of measurements per days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as oestrus detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behaviour assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behaviour, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected sensor information such as eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alerts (e.g., oestrus detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using an official external animal identifier (e.g. a national recording scheme or breed registry), or whether a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioural metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioural values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The primary trait evaluated is Rumination Time (min/day). In addition to absolute levels, metrics such as mean, standard deviation, or changes within defined time windows may also be considered. Further sets of variables are currently studied as indicators of overall resilience. This framework considers variability in longitudinal traits, such as rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. These longitudinal patterns should be evaluated within lactations and across successive lactations. Examples of studies that define resilience using longitudinal behavioural data include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlours, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to or in an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to or placed in the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “calibration period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to or placed in the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); days in milk (DIM); and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Linking rumination data to functional traits for genetic evaluation remains challenging, as genetic correlations are not yet well established and the evidence base is still limited. Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations presents challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensor systems, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensor system are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition. Data governance and legal compliance: multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal and regulatory frameworks, including appropriate provisions for privacy and confidentiality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance).&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time.&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background;  and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (h[https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554 ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Open questions to follow up:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If cows are culled before a minimum observation period, how should their rumination records be treated for analytical purposes? How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations).&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets.&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance).&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= ICAR/IDF Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS) =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is a crucial method for assessing the health and metabolic status of dairy cows by estimating their body fat reserves. Regular monitoring of BCS is essential for developing strategies for maintaining optimal body condition, health, welfare and productivity in dairy herds. This document provides standardized guidelines for BCS recording and use, emphasizing its applications in herd management, genetic evaluation, and welfare assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Defining Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is an indicator of the proportion of body fat in cows, providing a reliable measure of body reserves. It is assessed through visual or tactile appraisal and is rationalized into various numerical systems using different scales. The primary purpose of body conditions scoring is to evaluate the energy reserves in dairy cows, which are critical for their health, fertility, longevity, and productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS as an Indicator of Fat Reserve ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before the 1970s, there were no simple measures of a cow’s energy reserves or body condition. Body weight alone is not a reliable measure due to variations in frame size and gut fill. BCS provides a more accurate assessment by focusing on body fat reserves, which are crucial for buffering cows against negative energy balance during early lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS Scoring Systems and Their Diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
A variety of BCS scales inside different systems are used globally, each tailored to specific purposes such as conformation scoring for genetic evaluation, herd management, welfare assessment, and others. The variability in scales can cause confusion when comparing targets and results across farms and breeding programs. Moreover, the precision of BCS scales must be considered as defined by the number of used classes and not the range of the scales. Commonly scales used are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-3 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used for welfare assessment (Welfare Quality®: Assessment protocol for cattle (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;0-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the UK and Ireland, developed by     Jefferies (1961) for ewes and adapted for beef cattle by Lowman et al. (1973).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-10 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in New Zealand, developed by Roche et al. (2004).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-8 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in Australia, developed by Earle et al, (1977).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the US and European countries, with variants proposed by Wildman et al. (1982) and Ferguson et al. (1994). The Ferguson et     al. (1994) scale with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-9 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used of conformation  scoring programs to determine genetic differences among animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different countries use various BCS scales and associated systems based on local practices and requirements for specific purposes. Table 1 gives details on some of the most commonly used systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Details on some of the most commonly used systems&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Method&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United Kingdom&lt;br /&gt;
|0 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (11)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Mulvany (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|New Zealand&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (19)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Roche et al. (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 8&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (15)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Earle et al. (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Wildman et al. (1982)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Ferguson et al. (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Multiple&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 9&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (9)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|ICAR confirmation classification system]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Using Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Manual Assessment ===&lt;br /&gt;
Manual assessment of BCS involves palpating key body regions (e.g., ribs, spine, hips) to estimate fat and muscle reserves. This method remains reliable but is subject to assessor variability. Consistency in training assessors is crucial to reduce this variability. As differences between scorers, despite efforts to harmonize, can be expected, coded identification of assessors needs to be retained. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example for BCS Based on a 1-5 Scoring Scale ===&lt;br /&gt;
Detailed information describing the 1-5 scoring scale with 0.25 intervals (17 classes) were given by Edmonson et al. (1989). In Figure 1, the major elements for assigning the 5 major steps are given as an example.[[File:Section 7 Figure 8.1.jpg|center|frame|Figure 1: Example of an 1-5 BCS scale chart (Modified from Edmonson et al., 1989).]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Digital Tools ===&lt;br /&gt;
Three main levels of digital tools exist:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Use of digital tools to facilitate on-farm recording and documentation&#039;&#039;&#039;: Facilitates the use of standards when scoring the documentation and the recording of still visual assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-assisted assessments&#039;&#039;&#039;: Human assessors still doing the scoring but using devices to support manual assessment, replacing the     human eye.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-driven assessments with vision-based sensor systems&#039;&#039;&#039;: Purely automatic sensor-based assessments that also allow daily on-farm BCS assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For tools of types 2 and 3, reference populations need to include sufficiently extreme animals in order to develop prediction models covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Automated BCS recordings using digital technologies, such as 3D imaging systems (i.e., tools of type 3) offer a more objective and consistent assessment of BCS, typically multiple daily scoring when cows exit the milking system. The frequent and consistent measurements enable detailed analysis for each cow within and across lactations including short term individual and group level management. While minimizing human error and variation, the performance of automated BCS sensor system depends, among other factors, on the training and validation of the models. Human observers should be well trained showing high inter-observer and intra-observer agreement to generate a suitable reference standard. However, technological limitations due to on-farm conditions still make it challenging to achieve full accuracy, particularly when compared with manual palpation. Recent advances in AI models will be crucial to improve even more accuracy (e.g., detection of outliers).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Use of BCS Scales ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conversion Between BCS Scales ===&lt;br /&gt;
Conversions between different scales should be used with caution. Simple mathematical conversions may not be accurate due to non-linear use of scales. Conversion methods ranked from least to most reliable ones are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Mathematical Conversion of Scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop purely mathematical conversions, to be used with extreme caution.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Distribution-Based Conversion&#039;&#039;&#039;: Map attributed scores to a common scale using z-scores (Snell, 1965) based on the comparison of uses of scales, can be used under the assumption that the underlying populations have similar distributions of body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Aligning Calibrated BCS scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: An objective way to calibrate any BCS scale is to quantify the change in body weight (kg) associated with a one-unit change in BCS. If such     relationships are available for different BCS scales, a direct and biologically meaningful conversion can be established between them.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Simultaneous Scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop conversion equations based on simultaneous scoring of large groups of cows, covering the full range of variability in body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversion methods should always work sufficiently also for extreme animals covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Body condition scoring plays a vital role in managing dairy herds, allowing farmers to adjust feeding strategies and monitor metabolic health. Frequent BCS assessments help identify cows that are either losing or gaining condition too quickly, which may indicate underlying health or nutritional issues. Table 2 outlines various BCS scales proposed for specific purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Purpose of example BCS Scale.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Purpose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;BCS Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Frequency&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feeding advice&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Frequent and longitudinal&lt;br /&gt;
|Identification of cows with BCS change, indicating potential health problems and allowing optimization of feeding&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of metabolic disturbance&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Before and after calving and at least 2 times before peak of lactation (~50 DIM)&lt;br /&gt;
|Enables detection of BCS changes within cow during different stages of lactation in the herd &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Welfare assessment&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (3)&lt;br /&gt;
|Detect general status of cows (thin-normal-fat)&lt;br /&gt;
|Focus on identification of proportion of cows with unacceptable BCS that is indicator of and risk factor for diseases and disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 outlines the recommended frequency for BCS assessment based on the key stages in the cow’s lactation cycle. For metabolic risk assessment and nutritional management, the within cow differences in BCS between measurement moments should be calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Recommendations for the frequency of BCS assessments.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Moment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pre-calving&lt;br /&gt;
|Approximately 3 weeks before calving to ensure optimal condition&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Early lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Close monitoring at calving/fresh cow&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Peak lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of nadir in BCS&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dry off period&lt;br /&gt;
|Assess 7-8 weeks before calving to adjust feeding as needed&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An optimal recording scheme could include dry off, pre-calving, calving, early lactation/pre-service, 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; service, pregnancy check, and late lactation. A representative random stratified sample of cows representing all lactations should be measured at key stages to ensure effective assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;For further details, please refer to Gengler et al. (2024) and to the workshop “Recording and evaluation of BCS and its relationship with health and welfare” held in Montreal on the 31st of May 2022, organised by the “ICAR–IDF Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by a “Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines” which was composed out of members of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group and the IDF Standing Committee of Health and Welfare as well as members of other ICAR Groups and international experts. We would like to thank also the participants can contributors to the ICAR-IDF webinar in Montreal 2022 for their valuable contribution. The c&#039;&#039;orresponding author and leader of elaboration of these guidelines is&#039;&#039; [mailto:Nicolas.gengler@uliege.be nicolas.gengler@uliege.be].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Citation of guideline&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gengler, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1,&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Gyawali, A.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Brito, L.F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Bewley, J. M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Cole, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, de Jong, G.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Fourdraine, R.H.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Friggens, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Haskell, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Heringstad, B.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Kelton, D.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Pryce, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Sievert, S.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stock, K. F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stephen, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Vasseur, E.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Klaas, I.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner, C&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;.18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;. 2025. ICAR Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Aashish Gywali, LMU, Germany&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;5CDCB, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;CRV, Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;INRAE, France&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;University of Guelph, Canada&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Agriculture Victoria Research, Australia&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;National DHIA &amp;amp; DHIA Services, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy New Zealand, New Zealand&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_25_%E2%80%93_International_Beef_Evaluation_and_Validation&amp;diff=5038</id>
		<title>Section 25 – International Beef Evaluation and Validation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_25_%E2%80%93_International_Beef_Evaluation_and_Validation&amp;diff=5038"/>
		<updated>2026-05-20T16:37:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Motivation */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= International Beef Evaluation and Validation =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Advances in reproductive technologies—such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer—together with reduced costs for storing frozen genetic material, have transformed bovine genetic trade from a largely local activity into a global market. As genetic material increasingly moves across borders, breeders need reliable ways to compare animals from different countries and make well-informed selection decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International genetic evaluations were developed to address this need, first in dairy cattle and later in beef cattle. However, beef cattle present specific challenges: production systems vary widely within and between countries, trait definitions are not always aligned, and evaluation methods differ. These challenges are further compounded by the potential for genotype-by-environment interactions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the 2000s, studies across European countries highlighted the need for international beef evaluations that could account for these differences. In response, the ICAR Interbeef Working Group was established in 2006 to promote collaboration and harmonise recording and evaluation practices. The first international evaluations were conducted by the Interbull Centre in 2015, and the service has continued to evolve since then. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, Interbeef evaluations combine performance data from multiple countries using multi-trait, multi-country models that account for differences in national evaluation systems. This approach allows estimation of breeding values that are comparable across populations while remaining meaningful within each country. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring that these models produce unbiased and reliable results requires robust validation. While well-established validation methods exist for dairy cattle evaluations, they cannot be directly applied to beef cattle. Beef evaluations typically involve smaller and less connected contemporary groups, fewer progeny per sire, and fewer highly proven sires, partly due to the lower use of artificial insemination. These factors make it necessary to develop or adapt validation methods specifically for beef cattle data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines that follow provide a practical framework for international evaluations and validations of beef cattle. They outline key principles and recommended practices that can be applied across different systems and initiatives, supporting the continued improvement of global genetic evaluation services. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Applying Interbull Method II to Beef Evaluations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background ===&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic evaluations estimate the breeding value of the animals based on data from the individual, its relatives, or both. The accuracy of the estimates depends on the quality of the records and the models used for the evaluation. A major concern is the bias of the estimate, or, in other words, the difference between the animals&#039; expected and actual breeding values. Biased breeding values can lead to incorrect selection decisions and inaccurate estimates of genetic trends, so detecting and removing bias are therefore crucial.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The methods used to detect and measure the bias in the genetic models are known as validation methods. Validation is a key point in international evaluations, where different data and models are received from several countries. Countries utilizing models or data producing biased results can, over time, compromise the accuracy of international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the 1990s, Interbull has developed and updated validation methods for dairy evaluations. No specific validation methods were yet available for the beef international evaluations due, among other things, to the relatively young age of the service, as the first official evaluations was launched in 2015. Recognizing the need for validation and the differences between the dairy and beef industries, adapting or developing specific validation methods for beef evaluations is a crucial step. To this end, the Interbeef Working Group and Interbull Centre have worked together to identify suitable methods for implementing a model validation for beef genetic evaluations. Their work led to adapting the Interbull validation Method II to beef evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Interbull Method II should be applied at the national level before submitting data to the international evaluation. The results will be used to provide feedback to the National Genetics Evaluation Centres on the robustness of their genetic models and decide whether the data is suitable for inclusion in an international evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Interbull Method II ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Interbull Method II was initially developed for dairy cattle evaluation, focusing on the variation in daughter yield deviation (DYD) within individual bulls. The method can also examine the progeny yield deviation (PD) variation in beef cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Objectives ==&lt;br /&gt;
To implement a standardized validation method (lnterbull Method 11) at the national level for beef genetic evaluations, ensuring that submitted data is unbiased and suitable for inclusion in international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Validate data from countries participating in the Interbeef evaluation to determine their eligibility for inclusion. This process aims to improve the accuracy of the international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Establish standardized validation methods for models at the country level, allowing countries to demonstrate that their evaluations are unbiased and meet international standards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Responsibility ===&lt;br /&gt;
Countries calculating PD must use this method prior to submitting data to the Interbeef genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Motivation ==&lt;br /&gt;
This approach assumes that PD is independent from environmental influences (Boichard et al., 1995), which allows for assessing whether yearly effects impact PD. The method investigates the non-genetic trend over the years, with deviations from zero indicating biases in the genetic trend estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The PD is calculated based on the most recent national genetic evaluation incorporated into international evaluations within a year. PD is determined for each observation by considering the breeding value of the dam and other influencing factors but excluding the progeny&#039;s breeding value, as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Formula 1 Section 25.jpg|center|frameless|243x243px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Formula 2 Section 25.jpg|left|frameless|399x399px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The target bulls to include in the analysis should be AI bulls that that meet the following criteria:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Have offspring in at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three consecutive years.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Have at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three progeny per year.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* The progeny is present in at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three herds per year.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Action ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following model is used to analyse progeny individual deviations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PD&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* PD&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;  represents the progeny yield deviation for sire &#039;&#039;S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; in year &#039;&#039;j.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the sire &#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the regression coefficient for year &#039;&#039;j.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ii&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the residual term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference year (&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039; = 0) corresponds to when the bull&#039;s first progenies are born. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Criterion ===&lt;br /&gt;
The value of &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; indicates the yearly trend for bulls. If &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; differs from zero, it suggests the presence of an environmental trend not accounted for in the model. To establish a straightforward pass/fail criterion, the absolute value of &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; (│&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;│) should not exceed 1% of the trait&#039;s genetic standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Remarks ===&lt;br /&gt;
If the &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; value is positive &#039;&#039;(b&#039;&#039; &amp;gt; 0), this may indicate that the genetic trend is being overestimated. Conversely, a negative &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; value &#039;&#039;(b&#039;&#039; &amp;lt; 0) suggests that the trend is underestimated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Outcome ===&lt;br /&gt;
The validation process will follow specific criteria, such as population size and genetic diversity, ultimately resulting in a &amp;quot;yes/no&amp;quot; outcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Limitations ===&lt;br /&gt;
The estimation of PDs must be based on models that do not consider maternal effects. The test must be applied to at least 150 bulls that meet the requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boichard, D., B. Bonaiti, A. Barbat, and S. Mattalia. 1995. Three Methods to Validate the Estimation of Genetic Trend for Dairy Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 78:431-437. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76652-8&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_25_%E2%80%93_International_Beef_Evaluation_and_Validation&amp;diff=5037</id>
		<title>Section 25 – International Beef Evaluation and Validation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_25_%E2%80%93_International_Beef_Evaluation_and_Validation&amp;diff=5037"/>
		<updated>2026-05-20T16:35:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Motivation */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= International Beef Evaluation and Validation =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Advances in reproductive technologies—such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer—together with reduced costs for storing frozen genetic material, have transformed bovine genetic trade from a largely local activity into a global market. As genetic material increasingly moves across borders, breeders need reliable ways to compare animals from different countries and make well-informed selection decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International genetic evaluations were developed to address this need, first in dairy cattle and later in beef cattle. However, beef cattle present specific challenges: production systems vary widely within and between countries, trait definitions are not always aligned, and evaluation methods differ. These challenges are further compounded by the potential for genotype-by-environment interactions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the 2000s, studies across European countries highlighted the need for international beef evaluations that could account for these differences. In response, the ICAR Interbeef Working Group was established in 2006 to promote collaboration and harmonise recording and evaluation practices. The first international evaluations were conducted by the Interbull Centre in 2015, and the service has continued to evolve since then. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, Interbeef evaluations combine performance data from multiple countries using multi-trait, multi-country models that account for differences in national evaluation systems. This approach allows estimation of breeding values that are comparable across populations while remaining meaningful within each country. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring that these models produce unbiased and reliable results requires robust validation. While well-established validation methods exist for dairy cattle evaluations, they cannot be directly applied to beef cattle. Beef evaluations typically involve smaller and less connected contemporary groups, fewer progeny per sire, and fewer highly proven sires, partly due to the lower use of artificial insemination. These factors make it necessary to develop or adapt validation methods specifically for beef cattle data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines that follow provide a practical framework for international evaluations and validations of beef cattle. They outline key principles and recommended practices that can be applied across different systems and initiatives, supporting the continued improvement of global genetic evaluation services. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Applying Interbull Method II to Beef Evaluations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background ===&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic evaluations estimate the breeding value of the animals based on data from the individual, its relatives, or both. The accuracy of the estimates depends on the quality of the records and the models used for the evaluation. A major concern is the bias of the estimate, or, in other words, the difference between the animals&#039; expected and actual breeding values. Biased breeding values can lead to incorrect selection decisions and inaccurate estimates of genetic trends, so detecting and removing bias are therefore crucial.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The methods used to detect and measure the bias in the genetic models are known as validation methods. Validation is a key point in international evaluations, where different data and models are received from several countries. Countries utilizing models or data producing biased results can, over time, compromise the accuracy of international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the 1990s, Interbull has developed and updated validation methods for dairy evaluations. No specific validation methods were yet available for the beef international evaluations due, among other things, to the relatively young age of the service, as the first official evaluations was launched in 2015. Recognizing the need for validation and the differences between the dairy and beef industries, adapting or developing specific validation methods for beef evaluations is a crucial step. To this end, the Interbeef Working Group and Interbull Centre have worked together to identify suitable methods for implementing a model validation for beef genetic evaluations. Their work led to adapting the Interbull validation Method II to beef evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Interbull Method II should be applied at the national level before submitting data to the international evaluation. The results will be used to provide feedback to the National Genetics Evaluation Centres on the robustness of their genetic models and decide whether the data is suitable for inclusion in an international evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Interbull Method II ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Interbull Method II was initially developed for dairy cattle evaluation, focusing on the variation in daughter yield deviation (DYD) within individual bulls. The method can also examine the progeny yield deviation (PD) variation in beef cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Objectives ==&lt;br /&gt;
To implement a standardized validation method (lnterbull Method 11) at the national level for beef genetic evaluations, ensuring that submitted data is unbiased and suitable for inclusion in international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Validate data from countries participating in the Interbeef evaluation to determine their eligibility for inclusion. This process aims to improve the accuracy of the international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Establish standardized validation methods for models at the country level, allowing countries to demonstrate that their evaluations are unbiased and meet international standards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Responsibility ===&lt;br /&gt;
Countries calculating PD must use this method prior to submitting data to the Interbeef genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Motivation ==&lt;br /&gt;
This approach assumes that PD is independent from environmental influences (Boichard et al., 1995), which allows for assessing whether yearly effects impact PD. The method investigates the non-genetic trend over the years, with deviations from zero indicating biases in the genetic trend estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The PD is calculated based on the most recent national genetic evaluation incorporated into international evaluations within a year. PD is determined for each observation by considering the breeding value of the dam and other influencing factors but excluding the progeny&#039;s breeding value, as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Formula 1 Section 25.jpg|center|frameless|243x243px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Formula 2 Section 25.jpg|left|frameless|399x399px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The target bulls to include in the analysis should be A. I. bulls that following these criterias:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Have offspring in at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three consecutive years.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Have at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three progeny per year.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* The progeny is present in at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three herds per year.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Action ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following model is used to analyse progeny individual deviations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PD&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* PD&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;  represents the progeny yield deviation for sire &#039;&#039;S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; in year &#039;&#039;j.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the sire &#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the regression coefficient for year &#039;&#039;j.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ii&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the residual term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference year (&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039; = 0) corresponds to when the bull&#039;s first progenies are born. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Criterion ===&lt;br /&gt;
The value of &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; indicates the yearly trend for bulls. If &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; differs from zero, it suggests the presence of an environmental trend not accounted for in the model. To establish a straightforward pass/fail criterion, the absolute value of &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; (│&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;│) should not exceed 1% of the trait&#039;s genetic standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Remarks ===&lt;br /&gt;
If the &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; value is positive &#039;&#039;(b&#039;&#039; &amp;gt; 0), this may indicate that the genetic trend is being overestimated. Conversely, a negative &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; value &#039;&#039;(b&#039;&#039; &amp;lt; 0) suggests that the trend is underestimated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Outcome ===&lt;br /&gt;
The validation process will follow specific criteria, such as population size and genetic diversity, ultimately resulting in a &amp;quot;yes/no&amp;quot; outcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Limitations ===&lt;br /&gt;
The estimation of PDs must be based on models that do not consider maternal effects. The test must be applied to at least 150 bulls that meet the requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boichard, D., B. Bonaiti, A. Barbat, and S. Mattalia. 1995. Three Methods to Validate the Estimation of Genetic Trend for Dairy Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 78:431-437. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76652-8&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_25_%E2%80%93_International_Beef_Evaluation_and_Validation&amp;diff=5036</id>
		<title>Section 25 – International Beef Evaluation and Validation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_25_%E2%80%93_International_Beef_Evaluation_and_Validation&amp;diff=5036"/>
		<updated>2026-05-20T16:35:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Data */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= International Beef Evaluation and Validation =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Advances in reproductive technologies—such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer—together with reduced costs for storing frozen genetic material, have transformed bovine genetic trade from a largely local activity into a global market. As genetic material increasingly moves across borders, breeders need reliable ways to compare animals from different countries and make well-informed selection decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International genetic evaluations were developed to address this need, first in dairy cattle and later in beef cattle. However, beef cattle present specific challenges: production systems vary widely within and between countries, trait definitions are not always aligned, and evaluation methods differ. These challenges are further compounded by the potential for genotype-by-environment interactions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the 2000s, studies across European countries highlighted the need for international beef evaluations that could account for these differences. In response, the ICAR Interbeef Working Group was established in 2006 to promote collaboration and harmonise recording and evaluation practices. The first international evaluations were conducted by the Interbull Centre in 2015, and the service has continued to evolve since then. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, Interbeef evaluations combine performance data from multiple countries using multi-trait, multi-country models that account for differences in national evaluation systems. This approach allows estimation of breeding values that are comparable across populations while remaining meaningful within each country. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring that these models produce unbiased and reliable results requires robust validation. While well-established validation methods exist for dairy cattle evaluations, they cannot be directly applied to beef cattle. Beef evaluations typically involve smaller and less connected contemporary groups, fewer progeny per sire, and fewer highly proven sires, partly due to the lower use of artificial insemination. These factors make it necessary to develop or adapt validation methods specifically for beef cattle data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines that follow provide a practical framework for international evaluations and validations of beef cattle. They outline key principles and recommended practices that can be applied across different systems and initiatives, supporting the continued improvement of global genetic evaluation services. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Applying Interbull Method II to Beef Evaluations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background ===&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic evaluations estimate the breeding value of the animals based on data from the individual, its relatives, or both. The accuracy of the estimates depends on the quality of the records and the models used for the evaluation. A major concern is the bias of the estimate, or, in other words, the difference between the animals&#039; expected and actual breeding values. Biased breeding values can lead to incorrect selection decisions and inaccurate estimates of genetic trends, so detecting and removing bias are therefore crucial.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The methods used to detect and measure the bias in the genetic models are known as validation methods. Validation is a key point in international evaluations, where different data and models are received from several countries. Countries utilizing models or data producing biased results can, over time, compromise the accuracy of international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the 1990s, Interbull has developed and updated validation methods for dairy evaluations. No specific validation methods were yet available for the beef international evaluations due, among other things, to the relatively young age of the service, as the first official evaluations was launched in 2015. Recognizing the need for validation and the differences between the dairy and beef industries, adapting or developing specific validation methods for beef evaluations is a crucial step. To this end, the Interbeef Working Group and Interbull Centre have worked together to identify suitable methods for implementing a model validation for beef genetic evaluations. Their work led to adapting the Interbull validation Method II to beef evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Interbull Method II should be applied at the national level before submitting data to the international evaluation. The results will be used to provide feedback to the National Genetics Evaluation Centres on the robustness of their genetic models and decide whether the data is suitable for inclusion in an international evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Interbull Method II ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Interbull Method II was initially developed for dairy cattle evaluation, focusing on the variation in daughter yield deviation (DYD) within individual bulls. The method can also examine the progeny yield deviation (PD) variation in beef cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Objectives ==&lt;br /&gt;
To implement a standardized validation method (lnterbull Method 11) at the national level for beef genetic evaluations, ensuring that submitted data is unbiased and suitable for inclusion in international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Validate data from countries participating in the Interbeef evaluation to determine their eligibility for inclusion. This process aims to improve the accuracy of the international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Establish standardized validation methods for models at the country level, allowing countries to demonstrate that their evaluations are unbiased and meet international standards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Responsibility ===&lt;br /&gt;
Countries calculating PD must use this method prior to submitting data to the Interbeef genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Motivation ==&lt;br /&gt;
This approach assumes that PD is independent from environmental influences (Boichard et al., 1995), which allows for assessing whether yearly effects impact PD. The method investigates the non-genetic trend over the years, with deviations from zero indicating biases in the genetic trend estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The PD is calculated based on the most recent national genetic evaluation incorporated into international evaluations within a year. PD is determined for each observation by considering the breeding value of the dam and other influencing factors but excluding the progeny&#039;s breeding value, as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Formula 1 Section 25.jpg|center|frameless|243x243px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Formula 2 Section 25.jpg|left|frameless|399x399px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The target bulls to include in the analysis should be A. I. bulls that following these criterias:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Have offspring in at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three consecutive years.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Have at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three progeny per year.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* The progeny is present in at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three herds per year.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Action ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following model is used to analyse progeny individual deviations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PD&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* PD&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;  represents the progeny yield deviation for sire &#039;&#039;S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; in year &#039;&#039;j.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the sire &#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the regression coefficient for year &#039;&#039;j.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ii&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the residual term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference year (&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039; = 0) corresponds to when the bull&#039;s first progenies are born. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Criterion ===&lt;br /&gt;
The value of &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; indicates the yearly trend for bulls. If &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; differs from zero, it suggests the presence of an environmental trend not accounted for in the model. To establish a straightforward pass/fail criterion, the absolute value of &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; (│&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;│) should not exceed 1% of the trait&#039;s genetic standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Remarks ===&lt;br /&gt;
If the &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; value is positive &#039;&#039;(b&#039;&#039; &amp;gt; 0), this may indicate that the genetic trend is being overestimated. Conversely, a negative &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; value &#039;&#039;(b&#039;&#039; &amp;lt; 0) suggests that the trend is underestimated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Outcome ===&lt;br /&gt;
The validation process will follow specific criteria, such as population size and genetic diversity, ultimately resulting in a &amp;quot;yes/no&amp;quot; outcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Limitations ===&lt;br /&gt;
The estimation of PDs must be based on models that do not consider maternal effects. The test must be applied to at least 150 bulls that meet the requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boichard, D., B. Bonaiti, A. Barbat, and S. Mattalia. 1995. Three Methods to Validate the Estimation of Genetic Trend for Dairy Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 78:431-437. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76652-8&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_25_%E2%80%93_International_Beef_Evaluation_and_Validation&amp;diff=5035</id>
		<title>Section 25 – International Beef Evaluation and Validation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_25_%E2%80%93_International_Beef_Evaluation_and_Validation&amp;diff=5035"/>
		<updated>2026-05-20T16:33:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Motivation */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= International Beef Evaluation and Validation =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Advances in reproductive technologies—such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer—together with reduced costs for storing frozen genetic material, have transformed bovine genetic trade from a largely local activity into a global market. As genetic material increasingly moves across borders, breeders need reliable ways to compare animals from different countries and make well-informed selection decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International genetic evaluations were developed to address this need, first in dairy cattle and later in beef cattle. However, beef cattle present specific challenges: production systems vary widely within and between countries, trait definitions are not always aligned, and evaluation methods differ. These challenges are further compounded by the potential for genotype-by-environment interactions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the 2000s, studies across European countries highlighted the need for international beef evaluations that could account for these differences. In response, the ICAR Interbeef Working Group was established in 2006 to promote collaboration and harmonise recording and evaluation practices. The first international evaluations were conducted by the Interbull Centre in 2015, and the service has continued to evolve since then. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, Interbeef evaluations combine performance data from multiple countries using multi-trait, multi-country models that account for differences in national evaluation systems. This approach allows estimation of breeding values that are comparable across populations while remaining meaningful within each country. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring that these models produce unbiased and reliable results requires robust validation. While well-established validation methods exist for dairy cattle evaluations, they cannot be directly applied to beef cattle. Beef evaluations typically involve smaller and less connected contemporary groups, fewer progeny per sire, and fewer highly proven sires, partly due to the lower use of artificial insemination. These factors make it necessary to develop or adapt validation methods specifically for beef cattle data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines that follow provide a practical framework for international evaluations and validations of beef cattle. They outline key principles and recommended practices that can be applied across different systems and initiatives, supporting the continued improvement of global genetic evaluation services. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Applying Interbull Method II to Beef Evaluations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background ===&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic evaluations estimate the breeding value of the animals based on data from the individual, its relatives, or both. The accuracy of the estimates depends on the quality of the records and the models used for the evaluation. A major concern is the bias of the estimate, or, in other words, the difference between the animals&#039; expected and actual breeding values. Biased breeding values can lead to incorrect selection decisions and inaccurate estimates of genetic trends, so detecting and removing bias are therefore crucial.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The methods used to detect and measure the bias in the genetic models are known as validation methods. Validation is a key point in international evaluations, where different data and models are received from several countries. Countries utilizing models or data producing biased results can, over time, compromise the accuracy of international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the 1990s, Interbull has developed and updated validation methods for dairy evaluations. No specific validation methods were yet available for the beef international evaluations due, among other things, to the relatively young age of the service, as the first official evaluations was launched in 2015. Recognizing the need for validation and the differences between the dairy and beef industries, adapting or developing specific validation methods for beef evaluations is a crucial step. To this end, the Interbeef Working Group and Interbull Centre have worked together to identify suitable methods for implementing a model validation for beef genetic evaluations. Their work led to adapting the Interbull validation Method II to beef evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Interbull Method II should be applied at the national level before submitting data to the international evaluation. The results will be used to provide feedback to the National Genetics Evaluation Centres on the robustness of their genetic models and decide whether the data is suitable for inclusion in an international evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Interbull Method II ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Interbull Method II was initially developed for dairy cattle evaluation, focusing on the variation in daughter yield deviation (DYD) within individual bulls. The method can also examine the progeny yield deviation (PD) variation in beef cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Objectives ==&lt;br /&gt;
To implement a standardized validation method (lnterbull Method 11) at the national level for beef genetic evaluations, ensuring that submitted data is unbiased and suitable for inclusion in international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Validate data from countries participating in the Interbeef evaluation to determine their eligibility for inclusion. This process aims to improve the accuracy of the international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Establish standardized validation methods for models at the country level, allowing countries to demonstrate that their evaluations are unbiased and meet international standards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Responsibility ===&lt;br /&gt;
Countries calculating PD must use this method prior to submitting data to the Interbeef genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Motivation ==&lt;br /&gt;
This approach assumes that PD is independent from environmental influences (Boichard et al., 1995), which allows for assessing whether yearly effects impact PD. The method investigates the non-genetic trend over the years, with deviations from zero indicating biases in the genetic trend estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The PD is calculated based on the most recent national genetic evaluation incorporated into international evaluations within a year. PD is determined for each observation by considering the breeding value of the dam and other influencing factors but excluding the progeny&#039;s breeding value, as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Formula 1 Section 25.jpg|center|frameless|243x243px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Formula 2 Section 25.jpg|left|frameless|399x399px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The target bulls to include in the analysis should be A. I. bulls that following these criterias:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Have offspring in at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three consecutive years.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Have at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three progeny per year.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* The progeny is present in at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three herds per year.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Action ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following model is used to analyse progeny individual deviations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PD&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* PD&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;  represents the progeny yield deviation for sire &#039;&#039;S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; in year &#039;&#039;j.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the sire &#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the regression coefficient for year &#039;&#039;j.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ii&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the residual term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference year (&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039; = 0) corresponds to when the bull&#039;s first progenies are born. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Criterion ===&lt;br /&gt;
The value of &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; indicates the yearly trend for bulls. If &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; differs from zero, it suggests the presence of an environmental trend not accounted for in the model. To establish a straightforward pass/fail criterion, the absolute value of &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; (│&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;│) should not exceed 1% of the trait&#039;s genetic standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Remarks ===&lt;br /&gt;
If the &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; value is positive &#039;&#039;(b&#039;&#039; &amp;gt; 0), this may indicate that the genetic trend is being overestimated. Conversely, a negative &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; value &#039;&#039;(b&#039;&#039; &amp;lt; 0) suggests that the trend is underestimated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Outcome ===&lt;br /&gt;
The validation process will follow specific criteria, such as population size and genetic diversity, ultimately resulting in a &amp;quot;yes/no&amp;quot; outcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Limitations ===&lt;br /&gt;
The estimation of PDs must be based on models that do not consider maternal effects. The test must be applied to at least 150 bulls that meet the requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boichard, D., B. Bonaiti, A. Barbat, and S. Mattalia. 1995. Three Methods to Validate the Estimation of Genetic Trend for Dairy Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 78:431-437. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76652-8&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_04_%E2%80%93_DNA_Technology&amp;diff=5034</id>
		<title>Section 04 – DNA Technology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_04_%E2%80%93_DNA_Technology&amp;diff=5034"/>
		<updated>2026-05-20T12:31:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Appendix 1. Link to SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Molecular genetics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
Advances in molecular biology, especially genomics, provide a new set of information to be incorporated into the animal industry. On one hand, the use of molecular information may contribute to the enhancement of consumers&#039; trust in the ability to monitor and control the animal production chain. On the other hand, molecular information will greatly contribute to the achievement of genetic improvement for animal traits through the use of genomic breeding values, marker assisted selection, gene introgression, heterosis prediction, pedigree validation/prediction, and genetic defect carrier status. In most cases, advantages of using molecular information via genomic evaluations, comes from improved accuracy of animal breeding values, shortened generation intervals, and increased intensity of selection. Even with these advancements there is still a need for research and development in the search for associations between genetic markers and traits of interest, especially as new traits are included in national evaluation indexes. In addition to that, even with the current incorporation of genomic information into national selection schemes, an understanding of gene action, gene interactions, and differential gene expression to avoid negative collateral effects is needed. Cooperation between animal industries and research is required for a successful and beneficial search for genetic information in commercial livestock populations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic markers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic markers are the fundamental molecular tools for genomics, even as the type of marker used has changed. The first genetic marker associations in livestock were reported using blood typing in the 1960s, the technology then moved to microsatellites (MS) in the 1990s and more recently to the use of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP). SNP and MS are polymorphic DNA sequences (alleles) at a specific locus of a particular chromosome.  While blood typing has been an ICAR approved method of parentage verification currently there are few, if any, commercial labs still offering this testing.  For this reason, ICAR no longer recommends blood typing as the basis for carrying out parentage analysis in livestock species where MS or SNP technology is widely available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Microsatellites ====&lt;br /&gt;
These are segments of DNA containing tandem repeats of simple motifs usually dimers or trimers. These segments are located throughout the genome and normally in non-coding regions. Over time, these regions are subject to the addition or subtraction of tandem repeats, which means that each microsatellite can have multiple unique alleles. Microsatellites are commonly used in many livestock species for parentage validation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) ====&lt;br /&gt;
SNP are the most common type of genetic variation: each SNP represents a variation in a single nucleotide. There are millions of SNP located throughout the genome of every livestock species. For genomics the most informative SNP traditionally are either located in (a) coding regions where different alleles change the structure or function of the encoded protein, or (b) at non-coding regions that are involved in the regulatory function of the gene.   For genomic breeding values, SNP that are located in other regions of the genome are also informative as they could be in linkage disequilibrium with alleles that do cause a phenotype change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the big advantages of SNP is their deployment on SNP arrays with a strong parallel processing capacity whereby thousands or hundreds of thousands of SNP can be screened together in a cost-effective and efficient manner across a large number of animals.  Currently, the largest livestock genotyping labs can process hundreds of thousands of animals yearly on such arrays.  The availability of these large SNP panels is therefore bolstering the search for mutations underlying genetic variation for simple and complex traits. It is also revolutionizing the speed at which trait associated genes or gene regions are being discovered as well as the adoption rate of genomic selection strategies. SNP genotypes have become the international standard for the basis of parentage analysis and ICAR recommends this approach over the use of microsatellites wherever possible due to the improved accuracy and the ease of comparing results between genotyping laboratories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Current and potential uses of DNA technologies ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Parentage verification and parental assignment authentication ====&lt;br /&gt;
Prior to the emergence of SNP genotyping, parentage verification was the main commercial use of genetic markers. Traditionally, parentage testing was based on the exclusion of relationship (i.e.: sire or dam) when an animal has a genotype inconsistent to a putative relationship. New trends in animal production systems are tending to encourage animal production in larger numbers per farm in response to environmental and production related constraints. In these large settings, multiple animals could be bred or give birth on the same day, which can result in more pedigree recording errors. As the cost of the analysis decreases and the number of genetic markers available increases, breed societies are now able to build up pedigree records using genetic markers to predict the pedigree of calves born in a herd at a given time. This normally requires a prior knowledge of candidate sires and dams for a calf when lower number (&amp;lt;200) of markers are used, but with enough SNP the correct parents can be predicted without prior knowledge being available as long as the parent is also genotyped. The probability of assignment to a correct pair of animals will depend on the number of markers used, number of alleles per loci, the minor allele frequency in the population, the number of parents, and the number of possible matings. The International Society of Animal Genetics (www.isag.us) has species-specific panels recommended of microsatellite and SNP markers for this purpose, which can be accessed via a link such as provided in &#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-1-Cattle-SNP-ISAG-core-additional-panel-2013.xlsx Appendix 1]. Link to SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification&#039;&#039;.  For cattle, ICAR has developed a set of parentage SNP, ICAR554, which incorporates the ISAG recommended panel and other highly informative SNP.  This panel allows for highly accurate parentage validation and discovery while not allowing for accurate imputation to a higher density.  Therefore, the ICAR554 panel can be shared among countries and competitors for parentage analysis without fear of others being able to use them to predict genomic breeding values. ICAR and the Interbull Centre collaborate in offering an international genotype exchange service, referred to as GenoEx, which is described further in Chapter 5 specifically for the exchange of SNP genotypes for the purposes of parentage analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Traceability and authentication of animal products offered to consumers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Due to multiple crises, including BSE outbreaks to ground beef containing horsemeat, and with increased consumer interest in where their food comes from the traceability of meat products is of greater concern to the industry. Traceability is based on the availability of a verification and control system that monitors all relevant details throughout the entire livestock production chain. Since an individual’s genetic sequence is unique and does not change, its DNA remains constant from ‘conception to consumption’. Therefore, use of genetic markers allows one to match the DNA of an individual at birth to the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic markers for the authentication of animal products for labels of quality related to geographic location and labels of quality related to specific breeds or their crosses are/or will be very useful. However, this requires the establishment of molecular standards or allele frequencies for each breed within a species. A lot of information is coming from studies of genetic diversity among breeds. Genomic regions subject to intense selection in each population are of particular interest.  With a large enough set of SNP and genotyped purebred reference animals it is also possible to predict the most likely breed composition of individuals.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Molecular genetic information for marker-assisted selection schemes ====&lt;br /&gt;
Quantitative traits are generally assumed to be controlled by a large number of genes. However, individual genes sometimes account for a significant amount of variation of the trait. Such is the case for the Myostatin gene and double muscling in beef cattle, the DGAT1 gene and milk components in dairy cattle, or the Booroola fecundity gene and ovulation rate in sheep. Since the genotype of an animal does not change during its lifetime, use of DNA information through the identification of markers linked to QTL with effects on production traits or the identification of a gene itself together with the causative variant is of great interest. Nevertheless, with complex traits there is a growing need of having a sufficiently large marker set to incorporate molecular information for selection decisions. Including genomic information as a selection criterion is of special interest for traits that are difficult and costly to measure and/or are measured late in life. By 2022, &amp;gt;177,000 cattle, &amp;gt;34,000 swine, &amp;gt;16,000 chicken and &amp;gt;4,000 sheep QTL have been identified that are associated with economically important traits such as health, carcass, milk, fertility, and body conformation.  The AnimalQTLdb database housed at the [https://www.animalgenome.org/ National Animal Genome Research Program] contains up to date information on cattle, chicken, horse, pig, trout, and sheep QTL data assembled from published data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording schemes have been collecting information for decades on the most common production traits measured in domestic livestock. There is an ever-increasing volume of information becoming available, but for some traits like meat quality, disease resistance and feed efficiency, those records are very expensive to measure, difficult to obtain, or are performed late in the animal’s life. Because of these challenges information for such traits is commonly collected on a reduced number of animals in any given population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For these challenging, but economically important traits, genetic markers and genomic selection offer significant opportunities for trait selection where it was not economically feasible before.  In general, genetic markers and genomics will play an important role for important traits regardless of the livestock species. Genomics can also allow us to increase selection intensities since we can predict genomic breeding values on a large number of animals and thus have more candidates for selection. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Disease resistance and genetic defects ====&lt;br /&gt;
Another group of traits with a high potential for the use of molecular data and genomics are those linked to resistance, resilience, and susceptibility to diseases. There are a number of multi-factorial or complex diseases that are the result of the interaction between an animal’s genome and environmental components. Disease resistance traits are among the most difficult to include in genetic improvement programs because they require good field measurement of the disease status of the animals and a systematic control of management or environmental conditions that allow for the identification of the environmental influence on the health status of the animal. Infectious diseases depend very much upon environmental factors such as the degree of exposure to the pathogen agent. Thus, if exposure is low, animals will show little variation. Part of the phenotypic differences for resistance may be differences in the degree of challenge. Therefore, if genes or genetic markers linked to resistance are correctly identified, resistant animals will be able to be selected on the base of their genomic information. For many diseases, identification of genes associated with resistance will require experimental conditions to be used. Genetic analysis to identify heterozygous carriers of genetic diseases caused by single, recessive genes are currently in use. Examples in dairy cattle include complex vertebral malformation (CVM), brachyspina (BY), cholesterol deficiency (CD) and several genes, gene regions or haplotypes causing embryo loss or stillbirth in different dairy breeds. In 2022, [https://www.omia.org/home/ OMIA (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals),] listed &amp;gt;1000 traits or genetic defects in livestock with a known causative mutation (cattle: 186, pig: 58, chicken: 56, sheep: 49, horse: 48, goat:17).  Including these causative allele or associated haplotypes in a breeding program will allow producers to minimize their risk from genetic defects while maximizing genetic progress from beneficial traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Technical aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== DNA collection ====&lt;br /&gt;
Systematic collection of DNA is recommended in several livestock populations. DNA may be obtained from any nuclear cell in the body. Protocols for DNA extraction are now available for blood (white cells), semen, saliva (epithelial cells), hair follicles, muscle, skin, organs (such as liver, spleen etc.). Red blood cells may also be used for poultry as they retain the nuclear body while most other species do not.  Small amounts of tissue material are required for routine DNA analysis. However, if there are multiple future uses of an individual’s DNA (whole genome sequencing, traceability, causative allele validations, …), then DNA storage costs, extraction costs, quality, and quantity obtained by different protocols will have to be carefully examined and optimized. Common collection methods include hair follicles, tissue samples (often ear punch) in an enclosed container, blood spots on filter paper, and nasal swabs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Data organization ====&lt;br /&gt;
A centralised database may be organised in respect to the main uses of the genetic information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Parent verification, assignment, and/or discovery&lt;br /&gt;
* Traceability of meat products&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed identification or breed diversity&lt;br /&gt;
* Qualitative and quantitative traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Database tables may contain:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal identification to link to all other information on the animal and its relatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of genetic markers: n&lt;br /&gt;
* Standard name of each marker i (for i= 1, n)&lt;br /&gt;
* Accession number for marker such as the dbSNP ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alleles for marker i&lt;br /&gt;
* Genomic location of marker i&lt;br /&gt;
* Effect of non-reference allele on the protein&lt;br /&gt;
* Phenotypic effect of the allele&lt;br /&gt;
* Association with other traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Parentage accuracy ====&lt;br /&gt;
While use of microsatellite and SNP markers are both ICAR certified methods of parentage verification they do not have the same power of parentage accuracy. Briefly the order of accuracy for ISAG and ICAR approved parentage marker panels are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Microsatellites &amp;lt;&amp;lt; small SNP panels (100 or less) &amp;lt; large SNP panels (500 or more)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This order is based on both genotyping accuracy and total genomic information.  Comparing the genomic marker error rate in cattle microsatellites have a 1-5% error rate (Baruch and Weller, 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Baruch, E., and J. I. Weller. 2008. &#039;Estimation of the number of SNP genetic markers required for parentage verification&#039;, &#039;&#039;Animal Genetics&#039;&#039;, 39: 474-79.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) while the  SNP error rate is &amp;lt;0.1% (Cooper, Wiggans, and VanRaden 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cooper, T. A., G. R. Wiggans, and P. M. VanRaden. 2013. &#039;Short communication: relationship of call rate and accuracy of single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes in dairy cattle&#039;, &#039;&#039;Journal of dairy science&#039;&#039;, 96: 3336-9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).  As 2-3 SNP provide the same parentage exclusion accuracy as 1 microsatellite marker (Vignal et al. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Vignal, A., D. Milan, M. SanCristobal, and A. Eggen. 2002. &#039;A review on SNP and other types of molecular markers and their use in animal genetics&#039;, &#039;&#039;Genet Sel Evol&#039;&#039;, 34: 275-305.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.4.4  Genomic quality control checks&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), the 100 and 200 ISAG parentage SNP panels are more accurate than the 12 ISAG parentage microsatellite markers.  In the same manner parentage panels of over 500 SNP (McClure et al. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;McClure, M. C., J. McCarthy, P. Flynn, J. C. McClure, E. Dair, D. K. O&#039;Connell, and J. F. Kearney. 2018. &#039;SNP Data Quality Control in a National Beef and Dairy Cattle System and Highly Accurate SNP Based Parentage Verification and Identification&#039;, &#039;&#039;Front Genet&#039;&#039;, 9: 84.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), such as the ICAR554, are recommended for parentage prediction which requires an even higher level of accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genomic quality control checks ====&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important parts of a large genomic database is to ensure that a genotype associated with an individual animal truly belongs to that animal.  Most large livestock genomic databases deal with SNP data only and the quality of SNP genotyping data is of paramount importance (Wu at al., Evaluation of genotyping concordance for commercial bovine SNP arrays using quality-assurance samples, Animal Genetics, 50: 367-371, 2019). This section, therefore, focuses on quality control for that genomic data type.  Both sample and SNP quality control measures are needed, and it is encouraged to develop a system for them early.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For those working with genotype data there are two main concerns.  First, is ensuring that the genotype data itself is of high quality and can be trusted. Second, is ensuring that the genotype truly belongs to the individual listed.  The recommended quality control checks below will work for any livestock species.  The basic checks can be performed with minimal information about the individual, while some of the advanced checks require data that not everyone will have, such as historic animal location. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Basic genotype quality control checks for SNP-based genotype data =====&lt;br /&gt;
Genotype: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Exclude SNP that have a genotype call rate below 90% when analyzed in your population.  Using 500 or more animals to determine the SNP call rate is recommended.  Chromosome Y SNP should have their call rate determined only in males for this filter.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Invalidate the individual’s genotype if its overall call rate is below &amp;lt;90%.  For SNP-based genotypes, such as those from Illumina or Affymetrix chips, the accuracy of called genotypes is questionable when the individual’s overall call rate is &amp;lt;90%.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Check to see that the animal has all three genotype classes (i.e.: AA, AB and BB) in its full genotype file. If any genotype class is missing or has a frequency below 20% then invalidate the full genotype.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Check to ensure that there are no unexpected alleles in the genotype file. For example, genotypes in AB format should not have T, G, 0, 1, 2 or 9.   If present, then invalidate the full genotype file.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parentage:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Parent (Sire or Dam) validation.   If using 200 or less SNP, a listed sire will validate if &amp;lt;1% of the offspring-parent genotypes are in conflict.  A conflicting genotype is where the offspring and listed parent have opposite homozygous genotypes.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Mating validation after parent validation.   For all parentage validation SNP where the animal is heterozygous, if for &amp;gt;1% of those SNP the sire and dam are homozygous for the same allele then the listed mating is invalidated.  This could represent a case where the offspring and one of the parents were mislabeled with the other’s identification (so the offspring’s genotype belongs to the sire or dam and vice versa). Under such cases, it is recommended to resample the DNA and regenotype, potentially with a panel that includes more SNP.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advanced quality control checks for SNP-based genotype data =====&lt;br /&gt;
Animal:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Parentage discovery.   Using SNP data to predict who an animal’s likely parent is can be very useful, but steps must be taken to ensure a very high probability that the prediction is accurate. The following are recommended:&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using 500 or more SNP that have a minor allele frequency (MAF) above 20% and call rates above 90%.   It is advised to calculate the MAF across your full population.  Predicted parents should have &amp;lt;1% conflict rate with the animal.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sex check. Make sure that you have a process established to ensure that only males are predicted as the sire and only females as the dam.&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of Birth check.  If you do not include a check that the predicted parent is older than the animal than the predicted individual could actually be an offspring of the animal.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Age gap.    Cattle normally reach sexual maturity at 11-12 months of age, but this can be as young as 8-9 months, and even younger if in-vitro fertilization is a technology used within the population.  Under normal circumstances, a minimum of 17 months between the birth dates of the animal and its predicted parent is recommended to ensure that the predicted parent could have been sexually mature at the time of the breeding.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Grey zone SNP conflicts.   The majority of animals will have &amp;lt;0.5% or &amp;gt;1.5% conflicting genotypes with the individual when parentage discovery is conducted. Those with &amp;lt;0.5% pass the prediction and those with &amp;gt;1.5% fail.  Most failed animals will have &amp;gt;8% conflict rates.  For those animals who have between 0.5 and 1.5% conflicting SNP when a set parentage panel is used (i.e.: the ICAR554 SNP list), it is advised that the conflict rate from all available SNP be used between the two individuals and if the percent conflicting is &amp;lt;1% they validate as the parent, but if &amp;gt;1% they fail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Genetic Relationship Matrix (GRM).  If an animal’s true parent is not genotyped, then it cannot be directly predicted or validated.  The genetic relationship between closely related animals can be used to suggest a potential, non-genotyped, parent. It is recommended that 7,000 or more SNP be used to calculate the GRM.  GRM results DO NOT validate a relationship, but only suggest.  Caution should be used as GRM values can be inflated for inbred individuals.  Full-sibs and parent-child should have GRM values around 50%, while half-sibs would be around 25%.  The range for each group can vary 5-10% from the expected value.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Sex prediction. How to perform a sex prediction depends on the type and number of SNP an animal has from the X and Y chromosomes.  While not every commercial chip includes chromosome Y SNP, they typically contain chromosome X markers.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pseudo autosomal region (PAR) SNP.  As both the X and Y chromosomes contain the PAR, SNP from this region should be excluded from sex prediction.  If the PAR position boundaries are not published for your species they can be roughly determined by analyzing the chromosome X SNP in known males and females and identifying the region where the MAF in males for a continuous set of SNP is &amp;gt;1%.  Non-PAR regions of chromosome X will have SNP with average MAF of &amp;lt;1% in males and &amp;gt;&amp;gt;1% in females. &lt;br /&gt;
# Chromosome X predicted.   Use non-PAR SNP to determine the animal’s chromosome X heterozygosity rate (number of heterozygous chromosome X SNP / total number of chromosome X SNP).  If the average heterozygosity rate is &amp;lt;5%, the predicted sex is male, and if &amp;gt;15% its female. If the rate is between 5 and 15% then the predicted sex is unknown.   &lt;br /&gt;
# Chromosome Y predicted.   Using chromosome Y SNP to predict sex is logically simpler but many commercial chips do not contain them.  Say you have 7 chromosome Y SNP with high call rates in males, it is recommended using the following logic.   Male is predicted when 6-7 of the Y SNP are present; female is predicted when &amp;lt;1 SNP is present and ambiguous sex is predicted when 2-5 Y SNP are present.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Ambiguous sex prediction.   If one set of sex chromosome SNP returns an ambiguous sex prediction and the other doesn’t it is recommended using the latter as the predicted sex.   If both SNP sets are ambiguous, the animal could have Turner syndrome (X0), or Klinefelter’s syndrome (XXY), in this case it is recommended returning an ambiguous predicted sex. &lt;br /&gt;
# If the predicted sex from the chromosome X and Y analysis disagree, it is recommended returning an ambiguous predicted sex. This could also indicate a possible Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) animal.   &lt;br /&gt;
# Sex selected AI semen straws.   Sex prediction should not be carried out on DNA obtained from sex selected AI semen straws. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Offspring Quality control.   The genotyped and listed offspring of an animal can be used to identify potential cases where the animal’s genotype actually belongs to another animal.  These should be used as flags to indicate a potential investigation, but it is recommended to temporarily invalidate the animal’s genotype until cleared.  Advised thresholds for those flags are:&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# AI sire: If &amp;gt;80% of genotyped offspring fail if &amp;gt;10 offspring are genotyped.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stock/herd bull: If &amp;gt;80% of genotyped offspring fail if &amp;gt;5 offspring are genotyped.&lt;br /&gt;
# Dam: If 100% of genotyped offspring fail if 2 offspring are genotyped, else if &amp;gt;5 offspring are genotyped then use &amp;gt;80%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Duplicate genotype.   The only case where two or more animals should share the exact same genotype is if they are identical twins or clones.  Checking to see if &amp;gt;1 animal has the same genotypes is a useful quality control check.  It is recommended using your parentage SNP set for initial screening and for any pair that have &amp;gt;99% identical genotypes and then using all available SNP to see if &amp;gt;99% of the genotypes match.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For standardization purposes with respect to the nomenclature of genes or loci, a web site is available at: https://www.genenames.org/about/guidelines#genenames and markers at: [https://hgvs-nomenclature.org/versions/21.0/ &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.HGVS.org/varnomen&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ICAR services related to DNA technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR offers three services that are related to the use of DNA all of which are linked to parentage analysis in one form or another, as shown in Figure 1. ICAR DNA services., and describing them in more detail in the other sections.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ICAR DNA service.png|thumb|Figure 1. ICAR DNA  services.|center|415x415px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ICAR certification of laboratories providing DNA genotyping services ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
Considering the need for high quality standards in all uses of molecular data, ICAR has for several years offered a certification service based on defined minimum requirements for laboratories providing DNA genotyping services. The basic requirements of this certification include proof of the minimum internal management quality assurance standards and a Rank 1 result from participation in the most recent biennial international ring test developed and offered by the International Society for Animal Genetics (ISAG). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, such laboratories generally have been analyzing the resulting genotypes to carry out microsatellite- and/or SNP-based parentage analysis services including either parentage verification or animal identification confirmation. This ICAR certification service has previously been used for recognizing the genotyping laboratory as a certified organization to provide parentage analysis functions without specifically testing the technical accuracy of doing so. Effective 2021, the SNP-based parentage analysis certification service for DNA Data Interpretation Centres has replaced the previous laboratory certification for SNP-based parentage verification. In the future, a similar technical process for the certification of microsatellite-based parentage analysis may be introduced by ICAR but until such time, the existing process for the certification of genotyping laboratories will remain in effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following guidelines for certification are provided for microsatellite- and SNP-based genotyping in cattle. Minimum requirements for additional species and other DNA tests may be defined in the future. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Scope ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are for the certification , by ICAR, of genotyping laboratories that analyze biological samples from cattle using microsatellite- and or SNP-based genotyping, which may be subsequently used for various levels of parentage analysis, genotype imputation, estimation of genomic breeding values and other activities related to genomic selection strategies. This certification process also includes parentage verification based on microsatellites since ICAR has not established this service as part of the portfolio of possible certifications for DNA data interpretation centres. For genotyping laboratories that would like to receive ICAR certification for SNP-based parentage verification, they must now apply separately to ICAR for its parallel service of parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres, as described in section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== ICAR Guidelines for certification of genotyping laboratories ===&lt;br /&gt;
The certification process comprises the following steps:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Application for certification &lt;br /&gt;
* Payment of relevant fee&lt;br /&gt;
* Review of application&lt;br /&gt;
* Granting of certification &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Application for certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Laboratories requesting certification only for microsatellite- based genotyping and parentage verification must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form as provided in [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-II-Application-Form-for-STR-Accreditation.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 2. Application form for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle&#039;&#039;.] Laboratories seeking ICAR certification involving SNP-based genotyping must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form as provided in [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-V-Application-Form-for-SNP-Accreditation.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 3. Application form for SNP-based genotyping required for parentage analysis in cattle.&#039;&#039;] Laboratories that have previously received ICAR certification for either service may re-apply prior to the expiry of any such certification using a shortened renewal form available on the ICAR web site. All application forms must be emailed to the ICAR secretariat at dna@icar.org and be filled out accurately and completely including the necessary documentation as required.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Payment of relevant fee ====  &lt;br /&gt;
Along with the completed application form, the applicant must also provide full payment of the relevant fee as established by ICAR and given in [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/guidelines-for-str-and-snp-based-parentage-testing-in-cattle/ &#039;&#039;Appendix 4. ICAR DNA Laboratory Certification Service fees&#039;&#039;.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Review of application ====&lt;br /&gt;
The application will be evaluated by a committee of experts appointed by ICAR that will either:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Approve the application&lt;br /&gt;
* Request additional information, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Reject the application &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the case of rejection, the laboratory may make a new submission as part of the ICAR annual call for applications for any subsequent year after the failed application. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Granting of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Certification will be given for a period of two calendar years with an expiry date of December 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; of the second year after receiving ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Renewal of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
In advance of the expiry date of any existing ICAR certification , normally during the same year of the December 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; expiry date, a laboratory can apply for renewal of their certification by submitting an application as described in section 3.3.1 above and successfully completing the other steps outlined in this section 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Laboratory certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Effective the 2022 ICAR call for certification of genotyping laboratories, ISO17025 certification , or an equivalent certification for ensuring quality internal management systems, is a mandatory requirement for SNP-based certification .  In addition, effective the 2022 call for certification of genotyping laboratories for microsatellite (STR)-based certification, ISO9001 certification will no longer be acceptable and only ISO17025, or an equivalent certification, will be an acceptable level of certification to ensure quality internal management systems. During the year of application for ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services, the applicant must provide proof of ISO17025 certification with an expiry date of October 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; of the following calendar year, or later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Participation and performance in ring test ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a biennial basis, initiated during even years (i.e.: 2022, 20246, etc…) and discussed at its biennial conference in odd years (2023, 2025, etc.), ISAG conducts an international ring (comparison) test of laboratories for both microsatellite- and SNP-based genotyping. The participation in ISAG and performance within these ring tests must be disclosed, and certificates provided to ICAR, when available. Applicants must also sign a release allowing ISAG to directly disclose their ring test results to ICAR. Participation in the most recent ISAG ring test is a minimum requirement to qualify for ICAR certification. For the ISAG microsatellite ring test, lab genotyping performance for the official set of 12 ISAG microsatellites must be disclosed. The committee of experts will decide performance thresholds for each ring test with due consideration for the structure of the ring test and the average performance of laboratories in the ring test that year. Only those laboratories achieving Rank 1 status in the most recent biennial ISAG ring test shall automatically qualify to receive ICAR certification as a genotyping laboratory. Laboratories achieving a Rank 2 status in the most recent ISAG ring test may qualify to receive ICAR certification, at the discretion of the committee of experts, but must provide evidence of Rank 1 status for previous ISAG ring tests as well as documentation outlining the cause of the Rank 2 result and any associated actions to mitigate similar outcomes in future ISAG ring tests. Laboratories achieving a status lower than Rank 2 in the most recent ISAG ring test do not qualify for ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Microsatellite markers ====&lt;br /&gt;
The names of all microsatellites typed on all animals (marker set I) and of the additional ones assayed in the case of unresolved parentage (marker set II) must be declared, as well as the number of animals typed in at least the last two years. The minimum requirement for international exchange is the complete set of 12 official ISAG microsatellite markers. To ensure sufficient experience within the lab, analysis of 500 animals per year is set as minimum requirement for microsatellite parentage verification certification. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/03-Annex-III-ISAG-microsatellites.pdf Appendix 5. ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle]&#039;&#039; contains the list of microsatellite markers recommended by ISAG and the method for calculating 1 parent and 2 parent exclusion probabilities. The rules for microsatellite-based parentage verification in cattle are described in &#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01-Annex-I-guidelines-microsats-STRs.pdf Appendix 6. Rules for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle]&#039;&#039;. Exclusion probability (PE; 2 parents and 1 parent) of each marker and of the complete marker sets must be calculated and provided in the application. The type of population and number of animals (minimum 150) used for computations are to be described. ICAR recommends using Holstein as a reference group when possible. The ICAR committee of experts will evaluate that an appropriate PE is reached for certification, on the basis of the population analyzed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== SNP markers ====&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR certification of SNP-based parentage verification is based on the full set of 200 SNP previously recommended by ISAG. The name of all SNP genotyped on all animals (marker set I, including the 100 “Core” SNP) and of the additional markers assayed in the case of unresolved parentage (marker set II, including the 100 “Additional” SNP) must be declared, as well as the number of animals SNP genotyped in at least the last two years. ICAR recommends using the full set of 200 SNP for parentage verification of all animals genotyped (&#039;&#039;see [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf Appendix 7. List of approved SNP for parentage verification in]&#039;&#039; [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf cattle]). ICAR may, however, based on scientific evidence, identify specific problematic SNP that must be excluded for parentage analysis, as described in the ICAR documentation related to the certification of DNA data interpretation centres outlined in section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Marker nomenclature ====&lt;br /&gt;
Nomenclature of markers must be described. ISAG nomenclature is required for the official ISAG 12 marker set as well as for the ISAG SNP marker set.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Certification of organisations performing SNP-based parentage analysis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the advent of SNP genotyping, the function of DNA genotyping as a laboratory activity can be separated from the functions of performing parentage verification and parentage discovery. Consequently, ICAR has established a separate certification for applying the results of SNP-based genotyping, which may be undertaken by laboratories, breed association societies, genetic evaluation centres and any other organization involved in parentage verification and/or the data processing of SNP genotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parentage verification and discovery are concerned with using the results that are delivered by the laboratories from DNA genotyping and require SNP genotypes for the animal itself, its recorded parents and other possible parents in the case of parentage discovery. Organizations undertaking this function may be service providers between laboratories that ICAR has certified for microsatellite- and or SNP-based DNA genotyping and end users that may include breed societies, breeding companies, breeders and commercial farmers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Service providers could use different laboratories for different breeds and/or species. Considering the importance of animal identification and parentage verification in animal recording, ICAR has decided to define the minimum requirements for using the results of DNA genotyping, and other information, for the purpose of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Parentage verification&lt;br /&gt;
# Parentage discovery, and&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal identification confirmation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a basis for the certification of processes used by organizations that use SNP genotypes in cattle. Minimum requirements for additional species and other DNA analyses may be defined in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Scope ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are for the certification, by ICAR, of organizations that use the results of SNP-based tests for parentage analysis in cattle, which includes parentage verification, parentage discovery, and/or animal identification confirmation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Certification of organizations performing parentage analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR certification process comprises the following steps:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Application for certification&lt;br /&gt;
* Payment of relevant fee&lt;br /&gt;
* Review of application&lt;br /&gt;
* Technical processing of test data files&lt;br /&gt;
* Granting of certification&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Application ====&lt;br /&gt;
Organizations carrying out SNP-based parentage analysis and requesting ICAR certification as a DNA Data Interpretation Centre must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form included below as [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/6-Annex-V-Application-Form-forICAR-Accreditation-of-DNA-Centres.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 8. Application form for organizations seeking ICAR parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres&#039;&#039;.] This form must be filled out accurately and completely, providing necessary documentation as required, and submitted to ICAR with payment of the appropriate fee. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Review of application ====&lt;br /&gt;
The application will first be reviewed internally by ICAR for its completeness and additional details may be requested as needed. ICAR administration will also confirm receipt of the applicable fee. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Technical processing of test files ====&lt;br /&gt;
The applicant organization will receive a set of data files from ICAR through the Interbull Centre, for processing using its existing procedures for carrying out the level of parentage analysis for which the applicant is seeking ICAR certification as a DNA Data Interpretation Centre. A detailed description of this step is described in [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/two-new-dna-based-services/dna-data-interpretation-centres/ &#039;&#039;Appendix 9. Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres.&#039;&#039;] In order for the applicant to be successful in obtaining the requested ICAR certification, it&#039;s procedures for conducting parentage analysis must exactly follow [https://www.icar.org/Documents/GenoEx/ICAR%20Guidelines%20for%20Parentage%20Verification%20and%20Parentage%20Discovery%20based%20on%20SNP.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 10. ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes&#039;&#039;.] The list of SNP to be used for either parentage verification (N=200) or parentage discovery (N=554) are available in [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-11-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification-or-discovery.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery&#039;&#039;.] Once the applicant has completed its internal parentage analysis procedures based on the certification test files it received, it must send a data file of results back to the Interbull Centre. A maximum time period for 90 calendar days will be allowed for the applicant to submit acceptable files of results back to the Interbull Centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Granting of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Once the Interbull Centre receives the file of parentage analysis results from the applicant, it will complete the technical review and determine if the applicant has successfully completed the certification or not. The Interbull Centre shall inform ICAR of the results and ICAR shall issue a formal notification to the applicant. In the event the applicant was not successful in receiving ICAR certification, the applicant may initiate a new request for certification by completing and submitting the appropriate forms and providing payment of the applicable fee, as outlined above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Renewal of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
In advance of the expiry date of any existing ICAR certification, which coincides with the two-year anniversary date of the current certification, an applicant can apply for renewal of their certification by submitting an application as described in section 4.3.1 above and successfully completing the other required steps outlined in this section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Genotype Exchange Service – GenoEx-PSE ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Effective 2018, ICAR has made available a genotype exchange service for parentage analysis, GenoEx-PSE, offered through the Interbull Centre. The main goal of this service is to facilitate the international exchange of SNP genotypes such that approved service users can carry out parentage analysis services at a national level in an efficient manner. The GenoEx-PSE database system and user interface has been developed to allow for the exchange of SNP genotypes for either parentage verification or parentage discovery based on the list of SNP provided in &#039;&#039;Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for an organization to qualify as a service user for GenoEx-PSE, it must first receive ICAR certification as a DNA data interpretation centre.  The level of such ICAR certification (i.e.: for SNP-based parentage verification alone or for both SNP-based parentage verification and discovery) shall determine the highest level of SNP that may be exchanged via the GenoEx-PSE service. For details associated with this ICAR service, refer to the GenoEx-PSE web site at [https://genoex.org/ www.GenoEx.org.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Parentage Verification Using Full SNP Comparisons ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The rapid growth of genomic resources and the availability of high-density SNP genotyping platforms have enabled a shift from the traditional ISAG parentage verification panel toward full-genome SNP comparisons. Parentage checks have so far been performed on the ISAG PV SET of 195 SNPs, with thresholds defined for acceptance, doubt, and rejection of parentage relationships. While this framework has proven effective, it is increasingly challenged by the diversity of commercial SNP chips and sequencing platforms, many of which no longer guarantee the inclusion of the ISAG markers. Moreover, in large-scale databases where biological samples cannot be re-collected, relying exclusively on a fixed marker panel limits the ability to perform accurate parentage checks. To address these challenges, certified organizations can decide to use whole-genome SNP comparisons for certification, using thresholds that have been developed and tested using over 200,000 animal pairs across five bovine dairy breeds .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While all genotyping technologies and SNP arrays can be used for this type of certiticates, ICAR recommends the removal from the analyses all SNP arrays and/or single SNPs that are known to underperform or provide low quality results. Also, ICAR recommends that only SNP arrays with more than 5,000 whole-genome SNPs are used for this kind of comparisons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method is based on comparing only SNPs that are homozygous in both individuals of a parent-offspring pair. Results are classified by the % of Mendelian inconsistencies (mendelian inconsistency count / total common homozygous count * 100) : &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Accepted&#039;&#039;&#039; (≤0.6%), &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Dubious&#039;&#039;&#039; (0.6–1.0%)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rejected&#039;&#039;&#039; (&amp;gt;1.0%). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These thresholds were shown to be consistent across breeds and across chip densities, indicating that they are robust and suitable for use as international benchmarks. Duo-based comparisons at densities above 5,000 SNPs provide sufficient discriminatory power to detect parentage errors, therefore trio comparisons are not recommended in case of whole-genome SNP comparison certification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The adoption of full-SNP parentage verification offers multiple advantages: it provides a scalable solution for animals genotyped with different platforms, it expands applicability to crossbreds and minor breeds (with due care to avoid ascertainment bias), and it enables the reuse of historical genotypes where ISAG SNPs are missing. While the computational requirements are higher than for fixed panels, duo-based verification can be performed efficiently even with modest hardware. This type of comparison can be used to complement or replace the ISAG PV SET for certification purposes, offering a scientifically robust path for integrating modern genomic data into international parentage certification. When both full-SNP and ISAG PV SET-basded options are available, full-SNP comparisons should be preferred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix list ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 1. Link to SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
The list of the SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification is available [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/06-Annex-VI-ISAG-SNP-List.pdf here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 2. Application form for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-II-Application-Form-for-STR-Accreditation.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the Form for ICAR laboratory certification for STR Microsatellite-based Parentage Testing in Cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 3. Application form for SNP-based genotyping required for parentage analysis in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-V-Application-Form-for-SNP-Accreditation.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the Form for ICAR laboratory certification for SNP-based genotyping required for Parentage Analysis in Cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 4.  ICAR DNA laboratory certification service fees ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/index.php/certifications/dna-certifications/guidelines-for-str-and-snp-based-parentage-testing-in-cattle/ here] on the ICAR website for DNA testing certification services fees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 5. ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/03-Annex-III-ISAG-microsatellites.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the list of ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 6. Rules for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01-Annex-I-guidelines-microsats-STRs.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the rules for microsatellite-based parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 7. List of approved SNP for parentage verification in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the ICAR approved list of 200 SNP for parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 8. Application form for organizations seeking ICAR parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/6-Annex-V-Application-Form-forICAR-Accreditation-of-DNA-Centres.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the application form for organizations seeking ICAR certification status as a DNA data interpretation centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 9. Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/index.php/certifications/dna-certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/two-new-dna-based-services/dna-data-interpretation-centres/ here] on the ICAR website for the Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 10. ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Documents/GenoEx/ICAR%20Guidelines%20for%20Parentage%20Verification%20and%20Parentage%20Discovery%20based%20on%20SNP.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-11-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification-or-discovery.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the list of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_04_%E2%80%93_DNA_Technology&amp;diff=5033</id>
		<title>Section 04 – DNA Technology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_04_%E2%80%93_DNA_Technology&amp;diff=5033"/>
		<updated>2026-05-20T12:30:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Appendix 1. Link to SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Molecular genetics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
Advances in molecular biology, especially genomics, provide a new set of information to be incorporated into the animal industry. On one hand, the use of molecular information may contribute to the enhancement of consumers&#039; trust in the ability to monitor and control the animal production chain. On the other hand, molecular information will greatly contribute to the achievement of genetic improvement for animal traits through the use of genomic breeding values, marker assisted selection, gene introgression, heterosis prediction, pedigree validation/prediction, and genetic defect carrier status. In most cases, advantages of using molecular information via genomic evaluations, comes from improved accuracy of animal breeding values, shortened generation intervals, and increased intensity of selection. Even with these advancements there is still a need for research and development in the search for associations between genetic markers and traits of interest, especially as new traits are included in national evaluation indexes. In addition to that, even with the current incorporation of genomic information into national selection schemes, an understanding of gene action, gene interactions, and differential gene expression to avoid negative collateral effects is needed. Cooperation between animal industries and research is required for a successful and beneficial search for genetic information in commercial livestock populations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic markers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic markers are the fundamental molecular tools for genomics, even as the type of marker used has changed. The first genetic marker associations in livestock were reported using blood typing in the 1960s, the technology then moved to microsatellites (MS) in the 1990s and more recently to the use of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP). SNP and MS are polymorphic DNA sequences (alleles) at a specific locus of a particular chromosome.  While blood typing has been an ICAR approved method of parentage verification currently there are few, if any, commercial labs still offering this testing.  For this reason, ICAR no longer recommends blood typing as the basis for carrying out parentage analysis in livestock species where MS or SNP technology is widely available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Microsatellites ====&lt;br /&gt;
These are segments of DNA containing tandem repeats of simple motifs usually dimers or trimers. These segments are located throughout the genome and normally in non-coding regions. Over time, these regions are subject to the addition or subtraction of tandem repeats, which means that each microsatellite can have multiple unique alleles. Microsatellites are commonly used in many livestock species for parentage validation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) ====&lt;br /&gt;
SNP are the most common type of genetic variation: each SNP represents a variation in a single nucleotide. There are millions of SNP located throughout the genome of every livestock species. For genomics the most informative SNP traditionally are either located in (a) coding regions where different alleles change the structure or function of the encoded protein, or (b) at non-coding regions that are involved in the regulatory function of the gene.   For genomic breeding values, SNP that are located in other regions of the genome are also informative as they could be in linkage disequilibrium with alleles that do cause a phenotype change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the big advantages of SNP is their deployment on SNP arrays with a strong parallel processing capacity whereby thousands or hundreds of thousands of SNP can be screened together in a cost-effective and efficient manner across a large number of animals.  Currently, the largest livestock genotyping labs can process hundreds of thousands of animals yearly on such arrays.  The availability of these large SNP panels is therefore bolstering the search for mutations underlying genetic variation for simple and complex traits. It is also revolutionizing the speed at which trait associated genes or gene regions are being discovered as well as the adoption rate of genomic selection strategies. SNP genotypes have become the international standard for the basis of parentage analysis and ICAR recommends this approach over the use of microsatellites wherever possible due to the improved accuracy and the ease of comparing results between genotyping laboratories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Current and potential uses of DNA technologies ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Parentage verification and parental assignment authentication ====&lt;br /&gt;
Prior to the emergence of SNP genotyping, parentage verification was the main commercial use of genetic markers. Traditionally, parentage testing was based on the exclusion of relationship (i.e.: sire or dam) when an animal has a genotype inconsistent to a putative relationship. New trends in animal production systems are tending to encourage animal production in larger numbers per farm in response to environmental and production related constraints. In these large settings, multiple animals could be bred or give birth on the same day, which can result in more pedigree recording errors. As the cost of the analysis decreases and the number of genetic markers available increases, breed societies are now able to build up pedigree records using genetic markers to predict the pedigree of calves born in a herd at a given time. This normally requires a prior knowledge of candidate sires and dams for a calf when lower number (&amp;lt;200) of markers are used, but with enough SNP the correct parents can be predicted without prior knowledge being available as long as the parent is also genotyped. The probability of assignment to a correct pair of animals will depend on the number of markers used, number of alleles per loci, the minor allele frequency in the population, the number of parents, and the number of possible matings. The International Society of Animal Genetics (www.isag.us) has species-specific panels recommended of microsatellite and SNP markers for this purpose, which can be accessed via a link such as provided in &#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-1-Cattle-SNP-ISAG-core-additional-panel-2013.xlsx Appendix 1]. Link to SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification&#039;&#039;.  For cattle, ICAR has developed a set of parentage SNP, ICAR554, which incorporates the ISAG recommended panel and other highly informative SNP.  This panel allows for highly accurate parentage validation and discovery while not allowing for accurate imputation to a higher density.  Therefore, the ICAR554 panel can be shared among countries and competitors for parentage analysis without fear of others being able to use them to predict genomic breeding values. ICAR and the Interbull Centre collaborate in offering an international genotype exchange service, referred to as GenoEx, which is described further in Chapter 5 specifically for the exchange of SNP genotypes for the purposes of parentage analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Traceability and authentication of animal products offered to consumers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Due to multiple crises, including BSE outbreaks to ground beef containing horsemeat, and with increased consumer interest in where their food comes from the traceability of meat products is of greater concern to the industry. Traceability is based on the availability of a verification and control system that monitors all relevant details throughout the entire livestock production chain. Since an individual’s genetic sequence is unique and does not change, its DNA remains constant from ‘conception to consumption’. Therefore, use of genetic markers allows one to match the DNA of an individual at birth to the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic markers for the authentication of animal products for labels of quality related to geographic location and labels of quality related to specific breeds or their crosses are/or will be very useful. However, this requires the establishment of molecular standards or allele frequencies for each breed within a species. A lot of information is coming from studies of genetic diversity among breeds. Genomic regions subject to intense selection in each population are of particular interest.  With a large enough set of SNP and genotyped purebred reference animals it is also possible to predict the most likely breed composition of individuals.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Molecular genetic information for marker-assisted selection schemes ====&lt;br /&gt;
Quantitative traits are generally assumed to be controlled by a large number of genes. However, individual genes sometimes account for a significant amount of variation of the trait. Such is the case for the Myostatin gene and double muscling in beef cattle, the DGAT1 gene and milk components in dairy cattle, or the Booroola fecundity gene and ovulation rate in sheep. Since the genotype of an animal does not change during its lifetime, use of DNA information through the identification of markers linked to QTL with effects on production traits or the identification of a gene itself together with the causative variant is of great interest. Nevertheless, with complex traits there is a growing need of having a sufficiently large marker set to incorporate molecular information for selection decisions. Including genomic information as a selection criterion is of special interest for traits that are difficult and costly to measure and/or are measured late in life. By 2022, &amp;gt;177,000 cattle, &amp;gt;34,000 swine, &amp;gt;16,000 chicken and &amp;gt;4,000 sheep QTL have been identified that are associated with economically important traits such as health, carcass, milk, fertility, and body conformation.  The AnimalQTLdb database housed at the [https://www.animalgenome.org/ National Animal Genome Research Program] contains up to date information on cattle, chicken, horse, pig, trout, and sheep QTL data assembled from published data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording schemes have been collecting information for decades on the most common production traits measured in domestic livestock. There is an ever-increasing volume of information becoming available, but for some traits like meat quality, disease resistance and feed efficiency, those records are very expensive to measure, difficult to obtain, or are performed late in the animal’s life. Because of these challenges information for such traits is commonly collected on a reduced number of animals in any given population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For these challenging, but economically important traits, genetic markers and genomic selection offer significant opportunities for trait selection where it was not economically feasible before.  In general, genetic markers and genomics will play an important role for important traits regardless of the livestock species. Genomics can also allow us to increase selection intensities since we can predict genomic breeding values on a large number of animals and thus have more candidates for selection. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Disease resistance and genetic defects ====&lt;br /&gt;
Another group of traits with a high potential for the use of molecular data and genomics are those linked to resistance, resilience, and susceptibility to diseases. There are a number of multi-factorial or complex diseases that are the result of the interaction between an animal’s genome and environmental components. Disease resistance traits are among the most difficult to include in genetic improvement programs because they require good field measurement of the disease status of the animals and a systematic control of management or environmental conditions that allow for the identification of the environmental influence on the health status of the animal. Infectious diseases depend very much upon environmental factors such as the degree of exposure to the pathogen agent. Thus, if exposure is low, animals will show little variation. Part of the phenotypic differences for resistance may be differences in the degree of challenge. Therefore, if genes or genetic markers linked to resistance are correctly identified, resistant animals will be able to be selected on the base of their genomic information. For many diseases, identification of genes associated with resistance will require experimental conditions to be used. Genetic analysis to identify heterozygous carriers of genetic diseases caused by single, recessive genes are currently in use. Examples in dairy cattle include complex vertebral malformation (CVM), brachyspina (BY), cholesterol deficiency (CD) and several genes, gene regions or haplotypes causing embryo loss or stillbirth in different dairy breeds. In 2022, [https://www.omia.org/home/ OMIA (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals),] listed &amp;gt;1000 traits or genetic defects in livestock with a known causative mutation (cattle: 186, pig: 58, chicken: 56, sheep: 49, horse: 48, goat:17).  Including these causative allele or associated haplotypes in a breeding program will allow producers to minimize their risk from genetic defects while maximizing genetic progress from beneficial traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Technical aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== DNA collection ====&lt;br /&gt;
Systematic collection of DNA is recommended in several livestock populations. DNA may be obtained from any nuclear cell in the body. Protocols for DNA extraction are now available for blood (white cells), semen, saliva (epithelial cells), hair follicles, muscle, skin, organs (such as liver, spleen etc.). Red blood cells may also be used for poultry as they retain the nuclear body while most other species do not.  Small amounts of tissue material are required for routine DNA analysis. However, if there are multiple future uses of an individual’s DNA (whole genome sequencing, traceability, causative allele validations, …), then DNA storage costs, extraction costs, quality, and quantity obtained by different protocols will have to be carefully examined and optimized. Common collection methods include hair follicles, tissue samples (often ear punch) in an enclosed container, blood spots on filter paper, and nasal swabs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Data organization ====&lt;br /&gt;
A centralised database may be organised in respect to the main uses of the genetic information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Parent verification, assignment, and/or discovery&lt;br /&gt;
* Traceability of meat products&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed identification or breed diversity&lt;br /&gt;
* Qualitative and quantitative traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Database tables may contain:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal identification to link to all other information on the animal and its relatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of genetic markers: n&lt;br /&gt;
* Standard name of each marker i (for i= 1, n)&lt;br /&gt;
* Accession number for marker such as the dbSNP ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alleles for marker i&lt;br /&gt;
* Genomic location of marker i&lt;br /&gt;
* Effect of non-reference allele on the protein&lt;br /&gt;
* Phenotypic effect of the allele&lt;br /&gt;
* Association with other traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Parentage accuracy ====&lt;br /&gt;
While use of microsatellite and SNP markers are both ICAR certified methods of parentage verification they do not have the same power of parentage accuracy. Briefly the order of accuracy for ISAG and ICAR approved parentage marker panels are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Microsatellites &amp;lt;&amp;lt; small SNP panels (100 or less) &amp;lt; large SNP panels (500 or more)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This order is based on both genotyping accuracy and total genomic information.  Comparing the genomic marker error rate in cattle microsatellites have a 1-5% error rate (Baruch and Weller, 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Baruch, E., and J. I. Weller. 2008. &#039;Estimation of the number of SNP genetic markers required for parentage verification&#039;, &#039;&#039;Animal Genetics&#039;&#039;, 39: 474-79.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) while the  SNP error rate is &amp;lt;0.1% (Cooper, Wiggans, and VanRaden 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cooper, T. A., G. R. Wiggans, and P. M. VanRaden. 2013. &#039;Short communication: relationship of call rate and accuracy of single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes in dairy cattle&#039;, &#039;&#039;Journal of dairy science&#039;&#039;, 96: 3336-9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).  As 2-3 SNP provide the same parentage exclusion accuracy as 1 microsatellite marker (Vignal et al. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Vignal, A., D. Milan, M. SanCristobal, and A. Eggen. 2002. &#039;A review on SNP and other types of molecular markers and their use in animal genetics&#039;, &#039;&#039;Genet Sel Evol&#039;&#039;, 34: 275-305.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.4.4  Genomic quality control checks&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), the 100 and 200 ISAG parentage SNP panels are more accurate than the 12 ISAG parentage microsatellite markers.  In the same manner parentage panels of over 500 SNP (McClure et al. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;McClure, M. C., J. McCarthy, P. Flynn, J. C. McClure, E. Dair, D. K. O&#039;Connell, and J. F. Kearney. 2018. &#039;SNP Data Quality Control in a National Beef and Dairy Cattle System and Highly Accurate SNP Based Parentage Verification and Identification&#039;, &#039;&#039;Front Genet&#039;&#039;, 9: 84.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), such as the ICAR554, are recommended for parentage prediction which requires an even higher level of accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genomic quality control checks ====&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important parts of a large genomic database is to ensure that a genotype associated with an individual animal truly belongs to that animal.  Most large livestock genomic databases deal with SNP data only and the quality of SNP genotyping data is of paramount importance (Wu at al., Evaluation of genotyping concordance for commercial bovine SNP arrays using quality-assurance samples, Animal Genetics, 50: 367-371, 2019). This section, therefore, focuses on quality control for that genomic data type.  Both sample and SNP quality control measures are needed, and it is encouraged to develop a system for them early.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For those working with genotype data there are two main concerns.  First, is ensuring that the genotype data itself is of high quality and can be trusted. Second, is ensuring that the genotype truly belongs to the individual listed.  The recommended quality control checks below will work for any livestock species.  The basic checks can be performed with minimal information about the individual, while some of the advanced checks require data that not everyone will have, such as historic animal location. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Basic genotype quality control checks for SNP-based genotype data =====&lt;br /&gt;
Genotype: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Exclude SNP that have a genotype call rate below 90% when analyzed in your population.  Using 500 or more animals to determine the SNP call rate is recommended.  Chromosome Y SNP should have their call rate determined only in males for this filter.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Invalidate the individual’s genotype if its overall call rate is below &amp;lt;90%.  For SNP-based genotypes, such as those from Illumina or Affymetrix chips, the accuracy of called genotypes is questionable when the individual’s overall call rate is &amp;lt;90%.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Check to see that the animal has all three genotype classes (i.e.: AA, AB and BB) in its full genotype file. If any genotype class is missing or has a frequency below 20% then invalidate the full genotype.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Check to ensure that there are no unexpected alleles in the genotype file. For example, genotypes in AB format should not have T, G, 0, 1, 2 or 9.   If present, then invalidate the full genotype file.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parentage:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Parent (Sire or Dam) validation.   If using 200 or less SNP, a listed sire will validate if &amp;lt;1% of the offspring-parent genotypes are in conflict.  A conflicting genotype is where the offspring and listed parent have opposite homozygous genotypes.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Mating validation after parent validation.   For all parentage validation SNP where the animal is heterozygous, if for &amp;gt;1% of those SNP the sire and dam are homozygous for the same allele then the listed mating is invalidated.  This could represent a case where the offspring and one of the parents were mislabeled with the other’s identification (so the offspring’s genotype belongs to the sire or dam and vice versa). Under such cases, it is recommended to resample the DNA and regenotype, potentially with a panel that includes more SNP.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advanced quality control checks for SNP-based genotype data =====&lt;br /&gt;
Animal:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Parentage discovery.   Using SNP data to predict who an animal’s likely parent is can be very useful, but steps must be taken to ensure a very high probability that the prediction is accurate. The following are recommended:&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using 500 or more SNP that have a minor allele frequency (MAF) above 20% and call rates above 90%.   It is advised to calculate the MAF across your full population.  Predicted parents should have &amp;lt;1% conflict rate with the animal.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sex check. Make sure that you have a process established to ensure that only males are predicted as the sire and only females as the dam.&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of Birth check.  If you do not include a check that the predicted parent is older than the animal than the predicted individual could actually be an offspring of the animal.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Age gap.    Cattle normally reach sexual maturity at 11-12 months of age, but this can be as young as 8-9 months, and even younger if in-vitro fertilization is a technology used within the population.  Under normal circumstances, a minimum of 17 months between the birth dates of the animal and its predicted parent is recommended to ensure that the predicted parent could have been sexually mature at the time of the breeding.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Grey zone SNP conflicts.   The majority of animals will have &amp;lt;0.5% or &amp;gt;1.5% conflicting genotypes with the individual when parentage discovery is conducted. Those with &amp;lt;0.5% pass the prediction and those with &amp;gt;1.5% fail.  Most failed animals will have &amp;gt;8% conflict rates.  For those animals who have between 0.5 and 1.5% conflicting SNP when a set parentage panel is used (i.e.: the ICAR554 SNP list), it is advised that the conflict rate from all available SNP be used between the two individuals and if the percent conflicting is &amp;lt;1% they validate as the parent, but if &amp;gt;1% they fail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Genetic Relationship Matrix (GRM).  If an animal’s true parent is not genotyped, then it cannot be directly predicted or validated.  The genetic relationship between closely related animals can be used to suggest a potential, non-genotyped, parent. It is recommended that 7,000 or more SNP be used to calculate the GRM.  GRM results DO NOT validate a relationship, but only suggest.  Caution should be used as GRM values can be inflated for inbred individuals.  Full-sibs and parent-child should have GRM values around 50%, while half-sibs would be around 25%.  The range for each group can vary 5-10% from the expected value.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Sex prediction. How to perform a sex prediction depends on the type and number of SNP an animal has from the X and Y chromosomes.  While not every commercial chip includes chromosome Y SNP, they typically contain chromosome X markers.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pseudo autosomal region (PAR) SNP.  As both the X and Y chromosomes contain the PAR, SNP from this region should be excluded from sex prediction.  If the PAR position boundaries are not published for your species they can be roughly determined by analyzing the chromosome X SNP in known males and females and identifying the region where the MAF in males for a continuous set of SNP is &amp;gt;1%.  Non-PAR regions of chromosome X will have SNP with average MAF of &amp;lt;1% in males and &amp;gt;&amp;gt;1% in females. &lt;br /&gt;
# Chromosome X predicted.   Use non-PAR SNP to determine the animal’s chromosome X heterozygosity rate (number of heterozygous chromosome X SNP / total number of chromosome X SNP).  If the average heterozygosity rate is &amp;lt;5%, the predicted sex is male, and if &amp;gt;15% its female. If the rate is between 5 and 15% then the predicted sex is unknown.   &lt;br /&gt;
# Chromosome Y predicted.   Using chromosome Y SNP to predict sex is logically simpler but many commercial chips do not contain them.  Say you have 7 chromosome Y SNP with high call rates in males, it is recommended using the following logic.   Male is predicted when 6-7 of the Y SNP are present; female is predicted when &amp;lt;1 SNP is present and ambiguous sex is predicted when 2-5 Y SNP are present.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Ambiguous sex prediction.   If one set of sex chromosome SNP returns an ambiguous sex prediction and the other doesn’t it is recommended using the latter as the predicted sex.   If both SNP sets are ambiguous, the animal could have Turner syndrome (X0), or Klinefelter’s syndrome (XXY), in this case it is recommended returning an ambiguous predicted sex. &lt;br /&gt;
# If the predicted sex from the chromosome X and Y analysis disagree, it is recommended returning an ambiguous predicted sex. This could also indicate a possible Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) animal.   &lt;br /&gt;
# Sex selected AI semen straws.   Sex prediction should not be carried out on DNA obtained from sex selected AI semen straws. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Offspring Quality control.   The genotyped and listed offspring of an animal can be used to identify potential cases where the animal’s genotype actually belongs to another animal.  These should be used as flags to indicate a potential investigation, but it is recommended to temporarily invalidate the animal’s genotype until cleared.  Advised thresholds for those flags are:&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# AI sire: If &amp;gt;80% of genotyped offspring fail if &amp;gt;10 offspring are genotyped.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stock/herd bull: If &amp;gt;80% of genotyped offspring fail if &amp;gt;5 offspring are genotyped.&lt;br /&gt;
# Dam: If 100% of genotyped offspring fail if 2 offspring are genotyped, else if &amp;gt;5 offspring are genotyped then use &amp;gt;80%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Duplicate genotype.   The only case where two or more animals should share the exact same genotype is if they are identical twins or clones.  Checking to see if &amp;gt;1 animal has the same genotypes is a useful quality control check.  It is recommended using your parentage SNP set for initial screening and for any pair that have &amp;gt;99% identical genotypes and then using all available SNP to see if &amp;gt;99% of the genotypes match.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For standardization purposes with respect to the nomenclature of genes or loci, a web site is available at: https://www.genenames.org/about/guidelines#genenames and markers at: [https://hgvs-nomenclature.org/versions/21.0/ &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.HGVS.org/varnomen&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ICAR services related to DNA technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR offers three services that are related to the use of DNA all of which are linked to parentage analysis in one form or another, as shown in Figure 1. ICAR DNA services., and describing them in more detail in the other sections.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ICAR DNA service.png|thumb|Figure 1. ICAR DNA  services.|center|415x415px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ICAR certification of laboratories providing DNA genotyping services ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
Considering the need for high quality standards in all uses of molecular data, ICAR has for several years offered a certification service based on defined minimum requirements for laboratories providing DNA genotyping services. The basic requirements of this certification include proof of the minimum internal management quality assurance standards and a Rank 1 result from participation in the most recent biennial international ring test developed and offered by the International Society for Animal Genetics (ISAG). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, such laboratories generally have been analyzing the resulting genotypes to carry out microsatellite- and/or SNP-based parentage analysis services including either parentage verification or animal identification confirmation. This ICAR certification service has previously been used for recognizing the genotyping laboratory as a certified organization to provide parentage analysis functions without specifically testing the technical accuracy of doing so. Effective 2021, the SNP-based parentage analysis certification service for DNA Data Interpretation Centres has replaced the previous laboratory certification for SNP-based parentage verification. In the future, a similar technical process for the certification of microsatellite-based parentage analysis may be introduced by ICAR but until such time, the existing process for the certification of genotyping laboratories will remain in effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following guidelines for certification are provided for microsatellite- and SNP-based genotyping in cattle. Minimum requirements for additional species and other DNA tests may be defined in the future. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Scope ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are for the certification , by ICAR, of genotyping laboratories that analyze biological samples from cattle using microsatellite- and or SNP-based genotyping, which may be subsequently used for various levels of parentage analysis, genotype imputation, estimation of genomic breeding values and other activities related to genomic selection strategies. This certification process also includes parentage verification based on microsatellites since ICAR has not established this service as part of the portfolio of possible certifications for DNA data interpretation centres. For genotyping laboratories that would like to receive ICAR certification for SNP-based parentage verification, they must now apply separately to ICAR for its parallel service of parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres, as described in section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== ICAR Guidelines for certification of genotyping laboratories ===&lt;br /&gt;
The certification process comprises the following steps:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Application for certification &lt;br /&gt;
* Payment of relevant fee&lt;br /&gt;
* Review of application&lt;br /&gt;
* Granting of certification &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Application for certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Laboratories requesting certification only for microsatellite- based genotyping and parentage verification must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form as provided in [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-II-Application-Form-for-STR-Accreditation.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 2. Application form for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle&#039;&#039;.] Laboratories seeking ICAR certification involving SNP-based genotyping must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form as provided in [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-V-Application-Form-for-SNP-Accreditation.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 3. Application form for SNP-based genotyping required for parentage analysis in cattle.&#039;&#039;] Laboratories that have previously received ICAR certification for either service may re-apply prior to the expiry of any such certification using a shortened renewal form available on the ICAR web site. All application forms must be emailed to the ICAR secretariat at dna@icar.org and be filled out accurately and completely including the necessary documentation as required.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Payment of relevant fee ====  &lt;br /&gt;
Along with the completed application form, the applicant must also provide full payment of the relevant fee as established by ICAR and given in [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/guidelines-for-str-and-snp-based-parentage-testing-in-cattle/ &#039;&#039;Appendix 4. ICAR DNA Laboratory Certification Service fees&#039;&#039;.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Review of application ====&lt;br /&gt;
The application will be evaluated by a committee of experts appointed by ICAR that will either:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Approve the application&lt;br /&gt;
* Request additional information, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Reject the application &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the case of rejection, the laboratory may make a new submission as part of the ICAR annual call for applications for any subsequent year after the failed application. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Granting of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Certification will be given for a period of two calendar years with an expiry date of December 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; of the second year after receiving ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Renewal of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
In advance of the expiry date of any existing ICAR certification , normally during the same year of the December 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; expiry date, a laboratory can apply for renewal of their certification by submitting an application as described in section 3.3.1 above and successfully completing the other steps outlined in this section 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Laboratory certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Effective the 2022 ICAR call for certification of genotyping laboratories, ISO17025 certification , or an equivalent certification for ensuring quality internal management systems, is a mandatory requirement for SNP-based certification .  In addition, effective the 2022 call for certification of genotyping laboratories for microsatellite (STR)-based certification, ISO9001 certification will no longer be acceptable and only ISO17025, or an equivalent certification, will be an acceptable level of certification to ensure quality internal management systems. During the year of application for ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services, the applicant must provide proof of ISO17025 certification with an expiry date of October 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; of the following calendar year, or later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Participation and performance in ring test ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a biennial basis, initiated during even years (i.e.: 2022, 20246, etc…) and discussed at its biennial conference in odd years (2023, 2025, etc.), ISAG conducts an international ring (comparison) test of laboratories for both microsatellite- and SNP-based genotyping. The participation in ISAG and performance within these ring tests must be disclosed, and certificates provided to ICAR, when available. Applicants must also sign a release allowing ISAG to directly disclose their ring test results to ICAR. Participation in the most recent ISAG ring test is a minimum requirement to qualify for ICAR certification. For the ISAG microsatellite ring test, lab genotyping performance for the official set of 12 ISAG microsatellites must be disclosed. The committee of experts will decide performance thresholds for each ring test with due consideration for the structure of the ring test and the average performance of laboratories in the ring test that year. Only those laboratories achieving Rank 1 status in the most recent biennial ISAG ring test shall automatically qualify to receive ICAR certification as a genotyping laboratory. Laboratories achieving a Rank 2 status in the most recent ISAG ring test may qualify to receive ICAR certification, at the discretion of the committee of experts, but must provide evidence of Rank 1 status for previous ISAG ring tests as well as documentation outlining the cause of the Rank 2 result and any associated actions to mitigate similar outcomes in future ISAG ring tests. Laboratories achieving a status lower than Rank 2 in the most recent ISAG ring test do not qualify for ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Microsatellite markers ====&lt;br /&gt;
The names of all microsatellites typed on all animals (marker set I) and of the additional ones assayed in the case of unresolved parentage (marker set II) must be declared, as well as the number of animals typed in at least the last two years. The minimum requirement for international exchange is the complete set of 12 official ISAG microsatellite markers. To ensure sufficient experience within the lab, analysis of 500 animals per year is set as minimum requirement for microsatellite parentage verification certification. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/03-Annex-III-ISAG-microsatellites.pdf Appendix 5. ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle]&#039;&#039; contains the list of microsatellite markers recommended by ISAG and the method for calculating 1 parent and 2 parent exclusion probabilities. The rules for microsatellite-based parentage verification in cattle are described in &#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01-Annex-I-guidelines-microsats-STRs.pdf Appendix 6. Rules for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle]&#039;&#039;. Exclusion probability (PE; 2 parents and 1 parent) of each marker and of the complete marker sets must be calculated and provided in the application. The type of population and number of animals (minimum 150) used for computations are to be described. ICAR recommends using Holstein as a reference group when possible. The ICAR committee of experts will evaluate that an appropriate PE is reached for certification, on the basis of the population analyzed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== SNP markers ====&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR certification of SNP-based parentage verification is based on the full set of 200 SNP previously recommended by ISAG. The name of all SNP genotyped on all animals (marker set I, including the 100 “Core” SNP) and of the additional markers assayed in the case of unresolved parentage (marker set II, including the 100 “Additional” SNP) must be declared, as well as the number of animals SNP genotyped in at least the last two years. ICAR recommends using the full set of 200 SNP for parentage verification of all animals genotyped (&#039;&#039;see [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf Appendix 7. List of approved SNP for parentage verification in]&#039;&#039; [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf cattle]). ICAR may, however, based on scientific evidence, identify specific problematic SNP that must be excluded for parentage analysis, as described in the ICAR documentation related to the certification of DNA data interpretation centres outlined in section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Marker nomenclature ====&lt;br /&gt;
Nomenclature of markers must be described. ISAG nomenclature is required for the official ISAG 12 marker set as well as for the ISAG SNP marker set.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Certification of organisations performing SNP-based parentage analysis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the advent of SNP genotyping, the function of DNA genotyping as a laboratory activity can be separated from the functions of performing parentage verification and parentage discovery. Consequently, ICAR has established a separate certification for applying the results of SNP-based genotyping, which may be undertaken by laboratories, breed association societies, genetic evaluation centres and any other organization involved in parentage verification and/or the data processing of SNP genotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parentage verification and discovery are concerned with using the results that are delivered by the laboratories from DNA genotyping and require SNP genotypes for the animal itself, its recorded parents and other possible parents in the case of parentage discovery. Organizations undertaking this function may be service providers between laboratories that ICAR has certified for microsatellite- and or SNP-based DNA genotyping and end users that may include breed societies, breeding companies, breeders and commercial farmers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Service providers could use different laboratories for different breeds and/or species. Considering the importance of animal identification and parentage verification in animal recording, ICAR has decided to define the minimum requirements for using the results of DNA genotyping, and other information, for the purpose of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Parentage verification&lt;br /&gt;
# Parentage discovery, and&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal identification confirmation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a basis for the certification of processes used by organizations that use SNP genotypes in cattle. Minimum requirements for additional species and other DNA analyses may be defined in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Scope ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are for the certification, by ICAR, of organizations that use the results of SNP-based tests for parentage analysis in cattle, which includes parentage verification, parentage discovery, and/or animal identification confirmation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Certification of organizations performing parentage analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR certification process comprises the following steps:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Application for certification&lt;br /&gt;
* Payment of relevant fee&lt;br /&gt;
* Review of application&lt;br /&gt;
* Technical processing of test data files&lt;br /&gt;
* Granting of certification&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Application ====&lt;br /&gt;
Organizations carrying out SNP-based parentage analysis and requesting ICAR certification as a DNA Data Interpretation Centre must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form included below as [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/6-Annex-V-Application-Form-forICAR-Accreditation-of-DNA-Centres.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 8. Application form for organizations seeking ICAR parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres&#039;&#039;.] This form must be filled out accurately and completely, providing necessary documentation as required, and submitted to ICAR with payment of the appropriate fee. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Review of application ====&lt;br /&gt;
The application will first be reviewed internally by ICAR for its completeness and additional details may be requested as needed. ICAR administration will also confirm receipt of the applicable fee. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Technical processing of test files ====&lt;br /&gt;
The applicant organization will receive a set of data files from ICAR through the Interbull Centre, for processing using its existing procedures for carrying out the level of parentage analysis for which the applicant is seeking ICAR certification as a DNA Data Interpretation Centre. A detailed description of this step is described in [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/two-new-dna-based-services/dna-data-interpretation-centres/ &#039;&#039;Appendix 9. Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres.&#039;&#039;] In order for the applicant to be successful in obtaining the requested ICAR certification, it&#039;s procedures for conducting parentage analysis must exactly follow [https://www.icar.org/Documents/GenoEx/ICAR%20Guidelines%20for%20Parentage%20Verification%20and%20Parentage%20Discovery%20based%20on%20SNP.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 10. ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes&#039;&#039;.] The list of SNP to be used for either parentage verification (N=200) or parentage discovery (N=554) are available in [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-11-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification-or-discovery.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery&#039;&#039;.] Once the applicant has completed its internal parentage analysis procedures based on the certification test files it received, it must send a data file of results back to the Interbull Centre. A maximum time period for 90 calendar days will be allowed for the applicant to submit acceptable files of results back to the Interbull Centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Granting of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Once the Interbull Centre receives the file of parentage analysis results from the applicant, it will complete the technical review and determine if the applicant has successfully completed the certification or not. The Interbull Centre shall inform ICAR of the results and ICAR shall issue a formal notification to the applicant. In the event the applicant was not successful in receiving ICAR certification, the applicant may initiate a new request for certification by completing and submitting the appropriate forms and providing payment of the applicable fee, as outlined above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Renewal of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
In advance of the expiry date of any existing ICAR certification, which coincides with the two-year anniversary date of the current certification, an applicant can apply for renewal of their certification by submitting an application as described in section 4.3.1 above and successfully completing the other required steps outlined in this section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Genotype Exchange Service – GenoEx-PSE ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Effective 2018, ICAR has made available a genotype exchange service for parentage analysis, GenoEx-PSE, offered through the Interbull Centre. The main goal of this service is to facilitate the international exchange of SNP genotypes such that approved service users can carry out parentage analysis services at a national level in an efficient manner. The GenoEx-PSE database system and user interface has been developed to allow for the exchange of SNP genotypes for either parentage verification or parentage discovery based on the list of SNP provided in &#039;&#039;Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for an organization to qualify as a service user for GenoEx-PSE, it must first receive ICAR certification as a DNA data interpretation centre.  The level of such ICAR certification (i.e.: for SNP-based parentage verification alone or for both SNP-based parentage verification and discovery) shall determine the highest level of SNP that may be exchanged via the GenoEx-PSE service. For details associated with this ICAR service, refer to the GenoEx-PSE web site at [https://genoex.org/ www.GenoEx.org.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Parentage Verification Using Full SNP Comparisons ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The rapid growth of genomic resources and the availability of high-density SNP genotyping platforms have enabled a shift from the traditional ISAG parentage verification panel toward full-genome SNP comparisons. Parentage checks have so far been performed on the ISAG PV SET of 195 SNPs, with thresholds defined for acceptance, doubt, and rejection of parentage relationships. While this framework has proven effective, it is increasingly challenged by the diversity of commercial SNP chips and sequencing platforms, many of which no longer guarantee the inclusion of the ISAG markers. Moreover, in large-scale databases where biological samples cannot be re-collected, relying exclusively on a fixed marker panel limits the ability to perform accurate parentage checks. To address these challenges, certified organizations can decide to use whole-genome SNP comparisons for certification, using thresholds that have been developed and tested using over 200,000 animal pairs across five bovine dairy breeds .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While all genotyping technologies and SNP arrays can be used for this type of certiticates, ICAR recommends the removal from the analyses all SNP arrays and/or single SNPs that are known to underperform or provide low quality results. Also, ICAR recommends that only SNP arrays with more than 5,000 whole-genome SNPs are used for this kind of comparisons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method is based on comparing only SNPs that are homozygous in both individuals of a parent-offspring pair. Results are classified by the % of Mendelian inconsistencies (mendelian inconsistency count / total common homozygous count * 100) : &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Accepted&#039;&#039;&#039; (≤0.6%), &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Dubious&#039;&#039;&#039; (0.6–1.0%)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rejected&#039;&#039;&#039; (&amp;gt;1.0%). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These thresholds were shown to be consistent across breeds and across chip densities, indicating that they are robust and suitable for use as international benchmarks. Duo-based comparisons at densities above 5,000 SNPs provide sufficient discriminatory power to detect parentage errors, therefore trio comparisons are not recommended in case of whole-genome SNP comparison certification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The adoption of full-SNP parentage verification offers multiple advantages: it provides a scalable solution for animals genotyped with different platforms, it expands applicability to crossbreds and minor breeds (with due care to avoid ascertainment bias), and it enables the reuse of historical genotypes where ISAG SNPs are missing. While the computational requirements are higher than for fixed panels, duo-based verification can be performed efficiently even with modest hardware. This type of comparison can be used to complement or replace the ISAG PV SET for certification purposes, offering a scientifically robust path for integrating modern genomic data into international parentage certification. When both full-SNP and ISAG PV SET-basded options are available, full-SNP comparisons should be preferred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix list ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 1. Link to SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
The list of the SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification is available [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/06-Annex-VI-ISAG-SNP-List.pdf here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-1-Cattle-SNP-ISAG-core-additional-panel-2013.xlsx https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-1-Cattle-SNP-ISAG-core-additional-panel-2013.xlsx]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 2. Application form for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-II-Application-Form-for-STR-Accreditation.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the Form for ICAR laboratory certification for STR Microsatellite-based Parentage Testing in Cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 3. Application form for SNP-based genotyping required for parentage analysis in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-V-Application-Form-for-SNP-Accreditation.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the Form for ICAR laboratory certification for SNP-based genotyping required for Parentage Analysis in Cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 4.  ICAR DNA laboratory certification service fees ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/index.php/certifications/dna-certifications/guidelines-for-str-and-snp-based-parentage-testing-in-cattle/ here] on the ICAR website for DNA testing certification services fees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 5. ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/03-Annex-III-ISAG-microsatellites.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the list of ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 6. Rules for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01-Annex-I-guidelines-microsats-STRs.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the rules for microsatellite-based parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 7. List of approved SNP for parentage verification in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the ICAR approved list of 200 SNP for parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 8. Application form for organizations seeking ICAR parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/6-Annex-V-Application-Form-forICAR-Accreditation-of-DNA-Centres.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the application form for organizations seeking ICAR certification status as a DNA data interpretation centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 9. Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/index.php/certifications/dna-certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/two-new-dna-based-services/dna-data-interpretation-centres/ here] on the ICAR website for the Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 10. ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Documents/GenoEx/ICAR%20Guidelines%20for%20Parentage%20Verification%20and%20Parentage%20Discovery%20based%20on%20SNP.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-11-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification-or-discovery.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the list of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5032</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5032"/>
		<updated>2026-05-20T08:48:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website here - https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-claw-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file here - https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A  healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It  is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production  efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis  causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of  infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows  primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank  SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all  infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all  infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly  eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae  is fully  eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the  environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical  mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not  necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10%  of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus  dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus  faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all  infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella  pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the  number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than  200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of  udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for  on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and  somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd  management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per  individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the  presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain  threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer  from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform  a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct  overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include  correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such  as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires  different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore,  information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in  operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence,  bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support  at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages,  but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If  available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean  of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might  be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering  milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different  groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an  average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes  which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative  management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk  somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC  on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count  (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price  payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high  levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many  cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused.  When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental  infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete  with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of  contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are  usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe  illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not  invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually  suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good  management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039;              In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039;  Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039;             Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?           &#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of  recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of  inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June,  2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number  cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted  and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June  2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary  treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red,  first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical  mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the  cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et  al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein  Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number  of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average  0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al.,  2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer  and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the  wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly  painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as  digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly  extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with  odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole  and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be  caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization  (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2        Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9;  HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is  normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking.  The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and  is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of  locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often  bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of  movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step  at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is  obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that  limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore  limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow  additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight  on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted.  Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion  with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the  ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement –  Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Observe the foot position and  placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three  positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Directly behind the cow such  that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Left of the cow for a  side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Record the presence of EDGE,  SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Position yourself behind the  cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Ask the producer to shift the  cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       First walk from the right to  the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If the cow does not respond  to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on  the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move  left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If this still does not work,  poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3.       Pay attention to how the cow  shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe if the UNEVEN  indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight  on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe the foot position and  placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after  movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4.       Record presence of behavioural  indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding,  Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège,  Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3:  Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1]]Figure 1. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https:// doi .org/ 10 .2527/ jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended for stakeholders using sensor-derived data from dairy cows. They provide recommendations for recording, processing, integrating, and standardising data across sensors, and guidance on deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating those functional traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, there is limited research highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and rapidly recover to its baseline behavioural pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other variables such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, feeding, drinking). It should be explicitly stated that sensor-derived phenotypic traits are proxy measurements, inferred from behavioural patterns to reflect underlying biological states and are not equivalent to veterinary diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information is needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in [https://github.com/adewg/ICAR. https://github.com/adewg/ICAR.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique  Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to [https://wiki.interbull.org/public/beef_guidelines#A2.1_Format ICAR Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals where this cannot be avoided. In such cases, this should be recorded for subsequent verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Where alternative coding systems are used, mappings to ICAR/Interbull codes should be documented. Refer to [https://interbull.org/ib/icarbreedcodes breed codes]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farm Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modelling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor was used on a different animal, it is important that the information provided can be linked to the correct animal. Although considered a minimal risk, duplicate animal IDs have been observed in dairy herds and could lead to inaccurate recording of phenotypic traits. Therefore, this is a recommended step to enhance data collection accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to customers.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of  session with complete data collection) should also be provided. This applies to any other animal based or sensor-derived information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific projects..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The above specified data requirements and arrangements specified for rumination also apply to other behavioral traits measured in minutes (e.g. eating and lying), including associated metadata and aggregation rules such as the total number of measurements per days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as oestrus detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behaviour assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behaviour, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected sensor information such as eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alerts (e.g., oestrus detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using an official external animal identifier (e.g. a national recording scheme or breed registry), or whether a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioural metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioural values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The primary trait evaluated is Rumination Time (min/day). In addition to absolute levels, metrics such as mean, standard deviation, or changes within defined time windows may also be considered. Further sets of variables are currently studied as indicators of overall resilience. This framework considers variability in longitudinal traits, such as rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. These longitudinal patterns should be evaluated within lactations and across successive lactations. Examples of studies that define resilience using longitudinal behavioural data include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlours, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to or in an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to or placed in the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “calibration period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to or placed in the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); days in milk (DIM); and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Linking rumination data to functional traits for genetic evaluation remains challenging, as genetic correlations are not yet well established and the evidence base is still limited. Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations presents challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensor systems, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensor system are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition. Data governance and legal compliance: multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal and regulatory frameworks, including appropriate provisions for privacy and confidentiality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance).&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time.&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background;  and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (h[https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554 ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Open questions to follow up:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If cows are culled before a minimum observation period, how should their rumination records be treated for analytical purposes? How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations).&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets.&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance).&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= ICAR/IDF Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS) =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is a crucial method for assessing the health and metabolic status of dairy cows by estimating their body fat reserves. Regular monitoring of BCS is essential for developing strategies for maintaining optimal body condition, health, welfare and productivity in dairy herds. This document provides standardized guidelines for BCS recording and use, emphasizing its applications in herd management, genetic evaluation, and welfare assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Defining Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is an indicator of the proportion of body fat in cows, providing a reliable measure of body reserves. It is assessed through visual or tactile appraisal and is rationalized into various numerical systems using different scales. The primary purpose of body conditions scoring is to evaluate the energy reserves in dairy cows, which are critical for their health, fertility, longevity, and productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS as an Indicator of Fat Reserve ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before the 1970s, there were no simple measures of a cow’s energy reserves or body condition. Body weight alone is not a reliable measure due to variations in frame size and gut fill. BCS provides a more accurate assessment by focusing on body fat reserves, which are crucial for buffering cows against negative energy balance during early lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS Scoring Systems and Their Diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
A variety of BCS scales inside different systems are used globally, each tailored to specific purposes such as conformation scoring for genetic evaluation, herd management, welfare assessment, and others. The variability in scales can cause confusion when comparing targets and results across farms and breeding programs. Moreover, the precision of BCS scales must be considered as defined by the number of used classes and not the range of the scales. Commonly scales used are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-3 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used for welfare assessment (Welfare Quality®: Assessment protocol for cattle (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;0-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the UK and Ireland, developed by     Jefferies (1961) for ewes and adapted for beef cattle by Lowman et al. (1973).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-10 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in New Zealand, developed by Roche et al. (2004).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-8 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in Australia, developed by Earle et al, (1977).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the US and European countries, with variants proposed by Wildman et al. (1982) and Ferguson et al. (1994). The Ferguson et     al. (1994) scale with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-9 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used of conformation  scoring programs to determine genetic differences among animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different countries use various BCS scales and associated systems based on local practices and requirements for specific purposes. Table 1 gives details on some of the most commonly used systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Details on some of the most commonly used systems&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Method&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United Kingdom&lt;br /&gt;
|0 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (11)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Mulvany (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|New Zealand&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (19)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Roche et al. (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 8&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (15)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Earle et al. (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Wildman et al. (1982)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Ferguson et al. (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Multiple&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 9&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (9)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|ICAR confirmation classification system]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Using Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Manual Assessment ===&lt;br /&gt;
Manual assessment of BCS involves palpating key body regions (e.g., ribs, spine, hips) to estimate fat and muscle reserves. This method remains reliable but is subject to assessor variability. Consistency in training assessors is crucial to reduce this variability. As differences between scorers, despite efforts to harmonize, can be expected, coded identification of assessors needs to be retained. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example for BCS Based on a 1-5 Scoring Scale ===&lt;br /&gt;
Detailed information describing the 1-5 scoring scale with 0.25 intervals (17 classes) were given by Edmonson et al. (1989). In Figure 1, the major elements for assigning the 5 major steps are given as an example.[[File:Section 7 Figure 8.1.jpg|center|frame|Figure 1: Example of an 1-5 BCS scale chart (Modified from Edmonson et al., 1989).]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Digital Tools ===&lt;br /&gt;
Three main levels of digital tools exist:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Use of digital tools to facilitate on-farm recording and documentation&#039;&#039;&#039;: Facilitates the use of standards when scoring the documentation and the recording of still visual assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-assisted assessments&#039;&#039;&#039;: Human assessors still doing the scoring but using devices to support manual assessment, replacing the     human eye.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-driven assessments with vision-based sensor systems&#039;&#039;&#039;: Purely automatic sensor-based assessments that also allow daily on-farm BCS assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For tools of types 2 and 3, reference populations need to include sufficiently extreme animals in order to develop prediction models covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Automated BCS recordings using digital technologies, such as 3D imaging systems (i.e., tools of type 3) offer a more objective and consistent assessment of BCS, typically multiple daily scoring when cows exit the milking system. The frequent and consistent measurements enable detailed analysis for each cow within and across lactations including short term individual and group level management. While minimizing human error and variation, the performance of automated BCS sensor system depends, among other factors, on the training and validation of the models. Human observers should be well trained showing high inter-observer and intra-observer agreement to generate a suitable reference standard. However, technological limitations due to on-farm conditions still make it challenging to achieve full accuracy, particularly when compared with manual palpation. Recent advances in AI models will be crucial to improve even more accuracy (e.g., detection of outliers).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Use of BCS Scales ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conversion Between BCS Scales ===&lt;br /&gt;
Conversions between different scales should be used with caution. Simple mathematical conversions may not be accurate due to non-linear use of scales. Conversion methods ranked from least to most reliable ones are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Mathematical Conversion of Scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop purely mathematical conversions, to be used with extreme caution.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Distribution-Based Conversion&#039;&#039;&#039;: Map attributed scores to a common scale using z-scores (Snell, 1965) based on the comparison of uses of scales, can be used under the assumption that the underlying populations have similar distributions of body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Aligning Calibrated BCS scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: An objective way to calibrate any BCS scale is to quantify the change in body weight (kg) associated with a one-unit change in BCS. If such     relationships are available for different BCS scales, a direct and biologically meaningful conversion can be established between them.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Simultaneous Scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop conversion equations based on simultaneous scoring of large groups of cows, covering the full range of variability in body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversion methods should always work sufficiently also for extreme animals covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Body condition scoring plays a vital role in managing dairy herds, allowing farmers to adjust feeding strategies and monitor metabolic health. Frequent BCS assessments help identify cows that are either losing or gaining condition too quickly, which may indicate underlying health or nutritional issues. Table 2 outlines various BCS scales proposed for specific purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Purpose of example BCS Scale.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Purpose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;BCS Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Frequency&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feeding advice&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Frequent and longitudinal&lt;br /&gt;
|Identification of cows with BCS change, indicating potential health problems and allowing optimization of feeding&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of metabolic disturbance&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Before and after calving and at least 2 times before peak of lactation (~50 DIM)&lt;br /&gt;
|Enables detection of BCS changes within cow during different stages of lactation in the herd &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Welfare assessment&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (3)&lt;br /&gt;
|Detect general status of cows (thin-normal-fat)&lt;br /&gt;
|Focus on identification of proportion of cows with unacceptable BCS that is indicator of and risk factor for diseases and disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 outlines the recommended frequency for BCS assessment based on the key stages in the cow’s lactation cycle. For metabolic risk assessment and nutritional management, the within cow differences in BCS between measurement moments should be calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Recommendations for the frequency of BCS assessments.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Moment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pre-calving&lt;br /&gt;
|Approximately 3 weeks before calving to ensure optimal condition&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Early lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Close monitoring at calving/fresh cow&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Peak lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of nadir in BCS&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dry off period&lt;br /&gt;
|Assess 7-8 weeks before calving to adjust feeding as needed&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An optimal recording scheme could include dry off, pre-calving, calving, early lactation/pre-service, 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; service, pregnancy check, and late lactation. A representative random stratified sample of cows representing all lactations should be measured at key stages to ensure effective assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;For further details, please refer to Gengler et al. (2024) and to the workshop “Recording and evaluation of BCS and its relationship with health and welfare” held in Montreal on the 31st of May 2022, organised by the “ICAR–IDF Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by a “Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines” which was composed out of members of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group and the IDF Standing Committee of Health and Welfare as well as members of other ICAR Groups and international experts. We would like to thank also the participants can contributors to the ICAR-IDF webinar in Montreal 2022 for their valuable contribution. The c&#039;&#039;orresponding author and leader of elaboration of these guidelines is&#039;&#039; [mailto:Nicolas.gengler@uliege.be nicolas.gengler@uliege.be].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Citation of guideline&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gengler, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1,&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Gyawali, A.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Brito, L.F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Bewley, J. M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Cole, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, de Jong, G.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Fourdraine, R.H.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Friggens, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Haskell, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Heringstad, B.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Kelton, D.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Pryce, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Sievert, S.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stock, K. F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stephen, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Vasseur, E.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Klaas, I.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner, C&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;.18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;. 2025. ICAR Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Aashish Gywali, LMU, Germany&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;5CDCB, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;CRV, Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;INRAE, France&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;University of Guelph, Canada&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Agriculture Victoria Research, Australia&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;National DHIA &amp;amp; DHIA Services, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy New Zealand, New Zealand&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5031</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5031"/>
		<updated>2026-05-20T08:47:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* ICAR/IDF Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS) */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website here - https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-claw-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file here - https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A  healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It  is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production  efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis  causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of  infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows  primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank  SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all  infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all  infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly  eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae  is fully  eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the  environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical  mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not  necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10%  of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus  dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus  faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all  infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella  pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the  number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than  200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of  udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for  on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and  somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd  management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per  individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the  presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain  threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer  from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform  a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct  overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include  correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such  as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires  different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore,  information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in  operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence,  bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support  at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages,  but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If  available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean  of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might  be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering  milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different  groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an  average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes  which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative  management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk  somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC  on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count  (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price  payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high  levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many  cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused.  When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental  infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete  with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of  contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are  usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe  illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not  invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually  suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good  management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039;              In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039;  Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039;             Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?           &#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of  recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of  inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June,  2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number  cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted  and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June  2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary  treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red,  first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical  mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the  cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et  al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein  Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number  of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average  0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al.,  2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer  and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the  wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly  painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as  digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly  extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with  odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole  and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be  caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization  (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2        Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9;  HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is  normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking.  The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and  is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of  locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often  bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of  movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step  at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is  obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that  limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore  limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow  additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight  on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted.  Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion  with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the  ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement –  Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Observe the foot position and  placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three  positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Directly behind the cow such  that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Left of the cow for a  side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Record the presence of EDGE,  SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Position yourself behind the  cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Ask the producer to shift the  cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       First walk from the right to  the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If the cow does not respond  to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on  the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move  left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If this still does not work,  poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3.       Pay attention to how the cow  shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe if the UNEVEN  indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight  on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe the foot position and  placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after  movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4.       Record presence of behavioural  indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding,  Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège,  Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3:  Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1]]Figure 1. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https:// doi .org/ 10 .2527/ jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended for stakeholders using sensor-derived data from dairy cows. They provide recommendations for recording, processing, integrating, and standardising data across sensors, and guidance on deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating those functional traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, there is limited research highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and rapidly recover to its baseline behavioural pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other variables such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, feeding, drinking). It should be explicitly stated that sensor-derived phenotypic traits are proxy measurements, inferred from behavioural patterns to reflect underlying biological states and are not equivalent to veterinary diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information is needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in [https://github.com/adewg/ICAR. https://github.com/adewg/ICAR.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique  Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to [https://wiki.interbull.org/public/beef_guidelines#A2.1_Format ICAR Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals where this cannot be avoided. In such cases, this should be recorded for subsequent verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Where alternative coding systems are used, mappings to ICAR/Interbull codes should be documented. Refer to [https://interbull.org/ib/icarbreedcodes breed codes]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farm Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modelling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor was used on a different animal, it is important that the information provided can be linked to the correct animal. Although considered a minimal risk, duplicate animal IDs have been observed in dairy herds and could lead to inaccurate recording of phenotypic traits. Therefore, this is a recommended step to enhance data collection accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to customers.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of  session with complete data collection) should also be provided. This applies to any other animal based or sensor-derived information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific projects..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The above specified data requirements and arrangements specified for rumination also apply to other behavioral traits measured in minutes (e.g. eating and lying), including associated metadata and aggregation rules such as the total number of measurements per days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as oestrus detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behaviour assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behaviour, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected sensor information such as eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alerts (e.g., oestrus detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using an official external animal identifier (e.g. a national recording scheme or breed registry), or whether a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioural metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioural values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The primary trait evaluated is Rumination Time (min/day). In addition to absolute levels, metrics such as mean, standard deviation, or changes within defined time windows may also be considered. Further sets of variables are currently studied as indicators of overall resilience. This framework considers variability in longitudinal traits, such as rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. These longitudinal patterns should be evaluated within lactations and across successive lactations. Examples of studies that define resilience using longitudinal behavioural data include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlours, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to or in an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to or placed in the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “calibration period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to or placed in the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); days in milk (DIM); and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Linking rumination data to functional traits for genetic evaluation remains challenging, as genetic correlations are not yet well established and the evidence base is still limited. Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations presents challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensor systems, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensor system are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition. Data governance and legal compliance: multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal and regulatory frameworks, including appropriate provisions for privacy and confidentiality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance).&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time.&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background;  and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (h[https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554 ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Open questions to follow up:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If cows are culled before a minimum observation period, how should their rumination records be treated for analytical purposes? How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations).&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets.&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance).&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= ICAR/IDF Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS) =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is a crucial method for assessing the health and metabolic status of dairy cows by estimating their body fat reserves. Regular monitoring of BCS is essential for developing strategies for maintaining optimal body condition, health, welfare and productivity in dairy herds. This document provides standardized guidelines for BCS recording and use, emphasizing its applications in herd management, genetic evaluation, and welfare assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Defining Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is an indicator of the proportion of body fat in cows, providing a reliable measure of body reserves. It is assessed through visual or tactile appraisal and is rationalized into various numerical systems using different scales. The primary purpose of body conditions scoring is to evaluate the energy reserves in dairy cows, which are critical for their health, fertility, longevity, and productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS as an Indicator of Fat Reserve ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before the 1970s, there were no simple measures of a cow’s energy reserves or body condition. Body weight alone is not a reliable measure due to variations in frame size and gut fill. BCS provides a more accurate assessment by focusing on body fat reserves, which are crucial for buffering cows against negative energy balance during early lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS Scoring Systems and Their Diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
A variety of BCS scales inside different systems are used globally, each tailored to specific purposes such as conformation scoring for genetic evaluation, herd management, welfare assessment, and others. The variability in scales can cause confusion when comparing targets and results across farms and breeding programs. Moreover, the precision of BCS scales must be considered as defined by the number of used classes and not the range of the scales. Commonly scales used are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-3 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used for welfare assessment (Welfare Quality®: Assessment protocol for cattle (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;0-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the UK and Ireland, developed by     Jefferies (1961) for ewes and adapted for beef cattle by Lowman et al. (1973).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-10 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in New Zealand, developed by Roche et al. (2004).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-8 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in Australia, developed by Earle et al, (1977).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the US and European countries, with variants proposed by Wildman et al. (1982) and Ferguson et al. (1994). The Ferguson et     al. (1994) scale with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-9 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used of conformation  scoring programs to determine genetic differences among animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different countries use various BCS scales and associated systems based on local practices and requirements for specific purposes. Table 1 gives details on some of the most commonly used systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Details on some of the most commonly used systems&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Method&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United Kingdom&lt;br /&gt;
|0 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (11)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Mulvany (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|New Zealand&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (19)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Roche et al. (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 8&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (15)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Earle et al. (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Wildman et al. (1982)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Ferguson et al. (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Multiple&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 9&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (9)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|ICAR confirmation classification system]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Using Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Manual Assessment ===&lt;br /&gt;
Manual assessment of BCS involves palpating key body regions (e.g., ribs, spine, hips) to estimate fat and muscle reserves. This method remains reliable but is subject to assessor variability. Consistency in training assessors is crucial to reduce this variability. As differences between scorers, despite efforts to harmonize, can be expected, coded identification of assessors needs to be retained. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example for BCS Based on a 1-5 Scoring Scale ===&lt;br /&gt;
Detailed information describing the 1-5 scoring scale with 0.25 intervals (17 classes) were given by Edmonson et al. (1989). In Figure 1, the major elements for assigning the 5 major steps are given as an example.[[File:Section 7 Figure 8.1.jpg|center|frame|Figure 1: Example of an 1-5 BCS scale chart (Modified from Edmonson et al., 1989).]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Digital Tools ===&lt;br /&gt;
Three main levels of digital tools exist:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Use of digital tools to facilitate on-farm recording and documentation&#039;&#039;&#039;: Facilitates the use of standards when scoring the documentation and the recording of still visual assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-assisted assessments&#039;&#039;&#039;: Human assessors still doing the scoring but using devices to support manual assessment, replacing the     human eye.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-driven assessments with vision-based sensor systems&#039;&#039;&#039;: Purely automatic sensor-based assessments that also allow daily on-farm BCS assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For tools of types 2 and 3, reference populations need to include sufficiently extreme animals in order to develop prediction models covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Automated BCS recordings using digital technologies, such as 3D imaging systems (i.e., tools of type 3) offer a more objective and consistent assessment of BCS, typically multiple daily scoring when cows exit the milking system. The frequent and consistent measurements enable detailed analysis for each cow within and across lactations including short term individual and group level management. While minimizing human error and variation, the performance of automated BCS sensor system depends, among other factors, on the training and validation of the models. Human observers should be well trained showing high inter-observer and intra-observer agreement to generate a suitable reference standard. However, technological limitations due to on-farm conditions still make it challenging to achieve full accuracy, particularly when compared with manual palpation. Recent advances in AI models will be crucial to improve even more accuracy (e.g., detection of outliers).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Use of BCS Scales ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conversion Between BCS Scales ===&lt;br /&gt;
Conversions between different scales should be used with caution. Simple mathematical conversions may not be accurate due to non-linear use of scales. Conversion methods ranked from least to most reliable ones are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Mathematical Conversion of Scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop purely mathematical conversions, to be used with extreme caution.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Distribution-Based Conversion&#039;&#039;&#039;: Map attributed scores to a common scale using z-scores (Snell, 1965) based on the comparison of uses of scales, can be used under the assumption that the underlying populations have similar distributions of body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Aligning Calibrated BCS scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: An objective way to calibrate any BCS scale is to quantify the change in body weight (kg) associated with a one-unit change in BCS. If such     relationships are available for different BCS scales, a direct and biologically meaningful conversion can be established between them.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Simultaneous Scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop conversion equations based on simultaneous scoring of large groups of cows, covering the full range of variability in body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversion methods should always work sufficiently also for extreme animals covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Body condition scoring plays a vital role in managing dairy herds, allowing farmers to adjust feeding strategies and monitor metabolic health. Frequent BCS assessments help identify cows that are either losing or gaining condition too quickly, which may indicate underlying health or nutritional issues. Table 2 outlines various BCS scales proposed for specific purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Purpose of example BCS Scale.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Purpose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;BCS Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Frequency&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feeding advice&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Frequent and longitudinal&lt;br /&gt;
|Identification of cows with BCS change, indicating potential health problems and allowing optimization of feeding&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of metabolic disturbance&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Before and after calving and at least 2 times before peak of lactation (~50 DIM)&lt;br /&gt;
|Enables detection of BCS changes within cow during different stages of lactation in the herd &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Welfare assessment&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (3)&lt;br /&gt;
|Detect general status of cows (thin-normal-fat)&lt;br /&gt;
|Focus on identification of proportion of cows with unacceptable BCS that is indicator of and risk factor for diseases and disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 outlines the recommended frequency for BCS assessment based on the key stages in the cow’s lactation cycle. For metabolic risk assessment and nutritional management, the within cow differences in BCS between measurement moments should be calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Recommendations for the frequency of BCS assessments.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Moment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pre-calving&lt;br /&gt;
|Approximately 3 weeks before calving to ensure optimal condition&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Early lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Close monitoring at calving/fresh cow&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Peak lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of nadir in BCS&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dry off period&lt;br /&gt;
|Assess 7-8 weeks before calving to adjust feeding as needed&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An optimal recording scheme could include dry off, pre-calving, calving, early lactation/pre-service, 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; service, pregnancy check, and late lactation. A representative random stratified sample of cows representing all lactations should be measured at key stages to ensure effective assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;For further details, please refer to Gengler et al. (2024) and to the workshop “Recording and evaluation of BCS and its relationship with health and welfare” held in Montreal on the 31st of May 2022, organised by the “ICAR–IDF Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by a “Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines” which was composed out of members of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group and the IDF Standing Committee of Health and Welfare as well as members of other ICAR Groups and international experts. We would like to thank also the participants can contributors to the ICAR-IDF webinar in Montreal 2022 for their valuable contribution. The c&#039;&#039;orresponding author and leader of elaboration of these guidelines is&#039;&#039; [mailto:Nicolas.gengler@uliege.be nicolas.gengler@uliege.be].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Citation of guideline&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gengler, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1,&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Gyawali, A.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Brito, L.F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Bewley, J. M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Cole, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, de Jong, G.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Fourdraine, R.H.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Friggens, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Haskell, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Heringstad, B.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Kelton, D.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Pryce, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Sievert, S.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stock, K. F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stephen, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Vasseur, E.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Klaas, I.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner, C&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;.18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;. 2025. ICAR Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Aashish Gywali, LMU, Germany&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;5CDCB, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;CRV, Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;INRAE, France&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;University of Guelph, Canada&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Agriculture Victoria Research, Australia&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;National DHIA &amp;amp; DHIA Services, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy New Zealand, New Zealand&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_04_%E2%80%93_DNA_Technology&amp;diff=5030</id>
		<title>Section 04 – DNA Technology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_04_%E2%80%93_DNA_Technology&amp;diff=5030"/>
		<updated>2026-05-20T08:33:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Molecular genetics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
Advances in molecular biology, especially genomics, provide a new set of information to be incorporated into the animal industry. On one hand, the use of molecular information may contribute to the enhancement of consumers&#039; trust in the ability to monitor and control the animal production chain. On the other hand, molecular information will greatly contribute to the achievement of genetic improvement for animal traits through the use of genomic breeding values, marker assisted selection, gene introgression, heterosis prediction, pedigree validation/prediction, and genetic defect carrier status. In most cases, advantages of using molecular information via genomic evaluations, comes from improved accuracy of animal breeding values, shortened generation intervals, and increased intensity of selection. Even with these advancements there is still a need for research and development in the search for associations between genetic markers and traits of interest, especially as new traits are included in national evaluation indexes. In addition to that, even with the current incorporation of genomic information into national selection schemes, an understanding of gene action, gene interactions, and differential gene expression to avoid negative collateral effects is needed. Cooperation between animal industries and research is required for a successful and beneficial search for genetic information in commercial livestock populations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic markers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic markers are the fundamental molecular tools for genomics, even as the type of marker used has changed. The first genetic marker associations in livestock were reported using blood typing in the 1960s, the technology then moved to microsatellites (MS) in the 1990s and more recently to the use of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP). SNP and MS are polymorphic DNA sequences (alleles) at a specific locus of a particular chromosome.  While blood typing has been an ICAR approved method of parentage verification currently there are few, if any, commercial labs still offering this testing.  For this reason, ICAR no longer recommends blood typing as the basis for carrying out parentage analysis in livestock species where MS or SNP technology is widely available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Microsatellites ====&lt;br /&gt;
These are segments of DNA containing tandem repeats of simple motifs usually dimers or trimers. These segments are located throughout the genome and normally in non-coding regions. Over time, these regions are subject to the addition or subtraction of tandem repeats, which means that each microsatellite can have multiple unique alleles. Microsatellites are commonly used in many livestock species for parentage validation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) ====&lt;br /&gt;
SNP are the most common type of genetic variation: each SNP represents a variation in a single nucleotide. There are millions of SNP located throughout the genome of every livestock species. For genomics the most informative SNP traditionally are either located in (a) coding regions where different alleles change the structure or function of the encoded protein, or (b) at non-coding regions that are involved in the regulatory function of the gene.   For genomic breeding values, SNP that are located in other regions of the genome are also informative as they could be in linkage disequilibrium with alleles that do cause a phenotype change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the big advantages of SNP is their deployment on SNP arrays with a strong parallel processing capacity whereby thousands or hundreds of thousands of SNP can be screened together in a cost-effective and efficient manner across a large number of animals.  Currently, the largest livestock genotyping labs can process hundreds of thousands of animals yearly on such arrays.  The availability of these large SNP panels is therefore bolstering the search for mutations underlying genetic variation for simple and complex traits. It is also revolutionizing the speed at which trait associated genes or gene regions are being discovered as well as the adoption rate of genomic selection strategies. SNP genotypes have become the international standard for the basis of parentage analysis and ICAR recommends this approach over the use of microsatellites wherever possible due to the improved accuracy and the ease of comparing results between genotyping laboratories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Current and potential uses of DNA technologies ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Parentage verification and parental assignment authentication ====&lt;br /&gt;
Prior to the emergence of SNP genotyping, parentage verification was the main commercial use of genetic markers. Traditionally, parentage testing was based on the exclusion of relationship (i.e.: sire or dam) when an animal has a genotype inconsistent to a putative relationship. New trends in animal production systems are tending to encourage animal production in larger numbers per farm in response to environmental and production related constraints. In these large settings, multiple animals could be bred or give birth on the same day, which can result in more pedigree recording errors. As the cost of the analysis decreases and the number of genetic markers available increases, breed societies are now able to build up pedigree records using genetic markers to predict the pedigree of calves born in a herd at a given time. This normally requires a prior knowledge of candidate sires and dams for a calf when lower number (&amp;lt;200) of markers are used, but with enough SNP the correct parents can be predicted without prior knowledge being available as long as the parent is also genotyped. The probability of assignment to a correct pair of animals will depend on the number of markers used, number of alleles per loci, the minor allele frequency in the population, the number of parents, and the number of possible matings. The International Society of Animal Genetics (www.isag.us) has species-specific panels recommended of microsatellite and SNP markers for this purpose, which can be accessed via a link such as provided in &#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-1-Cattle-SNP-ISAG-core-additional-panel-2013.xlsx Appendix 1]. Link to SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification&#039;&#039;.  For cattle, ICAR has developed a set of parentage SNP, ICAR554, which incorporates the ISAG recommended panel and other highly informative SNP.  This panel allows for highly accurate parentage validation and discovery while not allowing for accurate imputation to a higher density.  Therefore, the ICAR554 panel can be shared among countries and competitors for parentage analysis without fear of others being able to use them to predict genomic breeding values. ICAR and the Interbull Centre collaborate in offering an international genotype exchange service, referred to as GenoEx, which is described further in Chapter 5 specifically for the exchange of SNP genotypes for the purposes of parentage analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Traceability and authentication of animal products offered to consumers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Due to multiple crises, including BSE outbreaks to ground beef containing horsemeat, and with increased consumer interest in where their food comes from the traceability of meat products is of greater concern to the industry. Traceability is based on the availability of a verification and control system that monitors all relevant details throughout the entire livestock production chain. Since an individual’s genetic sequence is unique and does not change, its DNA remains constant from ‘conception to consumption’. Therefore, use of genetic markers allows one to match the DNA of an individual at birth to the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic markers for the authentication of animal products for labels of quality related to geographic location and labels of quality related to specific breeds or their crosses are/or will be very useful. However, this requires the establishment of molecular standards or allele frequencies for each breed within a species. A lot of information is coming from studies of genetic diversity among breeds. Genomic regions subject to intense selection in each population are of particular interest.  With a large enough set of SNP and genotyped purebred reference animals it is also possible to predict the most likely breed composition of individuals.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Molecular genetic information for marker-assisted selection schemes ====&lt;br /&gt;
Quantitative traits are generally assumed to be controlled by a large number of genes. However, individual genes sometimes account for a significant amount of variation of the trait. Such is the case for the Myostatin gene and double muscling in beef cattle, the DGAT1 gene and milk components in dairy cattle, or the Booroola fecundity gene and ovulation rate in sheep. Since the genotype of an animal does not change during its lifetime, use of DNA information through the identification of markers linked to QTL with effects on production traits or the identification of a gene itself together with the causative variant is of great interest. Nevertheless, with complex traits there is a growing need of having a sufficiently large marker set to incorporate molecular information for selection decisions. Including genomic information as a selection criterion is of special interest for traits that are difficult and costly to measure and/or are measured late in life. By 2022, &amp;gt;177,000 cattle, &amp;gt;34,000 swine, &amp;gt;16,000 chicken and &amp;gt;4,000 sheep QTL have been identified that are associated with economically important traits such as health, carcass, milk, fertility, and body conformation.  The AnimalQTLdb database housed at the [https://www.animalgenome.org/ National Animal Genome Research Program] contains up to date information on cattle, chicken, horse, pig, trout, and sheep QTL data assembled from published data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording schemes have been collecting information for decades on the most common production traits measured in domestic livestock. There is an ever-increasing volume of information becoming available, but for some traits like meat quality, disease resistance and feed efficiency, those records are very expensive to measure, difficult to obtain, or are performed late in the animal’s life. Because of these challenges information for such traits is commonly collected on a reduced number of animals in any given population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For these challenging, but economically important traits, genetic markers and genomic selection offer significant opportunities for trait selection where it was not economically feasible before.  In general, genetic markers and genomics will play an important role for important traits regardless of the livestock species. Genomics can also allow us to increase selection intensities since we can predict genomic breeding values on a large number of animals and thus have more candidates for selection. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Disease resistance and genetic defects ====&lt;br /&gt;
Another group of traits with a high potential for the use of molecular data and genomics are those linked to resistance, resilience, and susceptibility to diseases. There are a number of multi-factorial or complex diseases that are the result of the interaction between an animal’s genome and environmental components. Disease resistance traits are among the most difficult to include in genetic improvement programs because they require good field measurement of the disease status of the animals and a systematic control of management or environmental conditions that allow for the identification of the environmental influence on the health status of the animal. Infectious diseases depend very much upon environmental factors such as the degree of exposure to the pathogen agent. Thus, if exposure is low, animals will show little variation. Part of the phenotypic differences for resistance may be differences in the degree of challenge. Therefore, if genes or genetic markers linked to resistance are correctly identified, resistant animals will be able to be selected on the base of their genomic information. For many diseases, identification of genes associated with resistance will require experimental conditions to be used. Genetic analysis to identify heterozygous carriers of genetic diseases caused by single, recessive genes are currently in use. Examples in dairy cattle include complex vertebral malformation (CVM), brachyspina (BY), cholesterol deficiency (CD) and several genes, gene regions or haplotypes causing embryo loss or stillbirth in different dairy breeds. In 2022, [https://www.omia.org/home/ OMIA (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals),] listed &amp;gt;1000 traits or genetic defects in livestock with a known causative mutation (cattle: 186, pig: 58, chicken: 56, sheep: 49, horse: 48, goat:17).  Including these causative allele or associated haplotypes in a breeding program will allow producers to minimize their risk from genetic defects while maximizing genetic progress from beneficial traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Technical aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== DNA collection ====&lt;br /&gt;
Systematic collection of DNA is recommended in several livestock populations. DNA may be obtained from any nuclear cell in the body. Protocols for DNA extraction are now available for blood (white cells), semen, saliva (epithelial cells), hair follicles, muscle, skin, organs (such as liver, spleen etc.). Red blood cells may also be used for poultry as they retain the nuclear body while most other species do not.  Small amounts of tissue material are required for routine DNA analysis. However, if there are multiple future uses of an individual’s DNA (whole genome sequencing, traceability, causative allele validations, …), then DNA storage costs, extraction costs, quality, and quantity obtained by different protocols will have to be carefully examined and optimized. Common collection methods include hair follicles, tissue samples (often ear punch) in an enclosed container, blood spots on filter paper, and nasal swabs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Data organization ====&lt;br /&gt;
A centralised database may be organised in respect to the main uses of the genetic information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Parent verification, assignment, and/or discovery&lt;br /&gt;
* Traceability of meat products&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed identification or breed diversity&lt;br /&gt;
* Qualitative and quantitative traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Database tables may contain:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal identification to link to all other information on the animal and its relatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of genetic markers: n&lt;br /&gt;
* Standard name of each marker i (for i= 1, n)&lt;br /&gt;
* Accession number for marker such as the dbSNP ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alleles for marker i&lt;br /&gt;
* Genomic location of marker i&lt;br /&gt;
* Effect of non-reference allele on the protein&lt;br /&gt;
* Phenotypic effect of the allele&lt;br /&gt;
* Association with other traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Parentage accuracy ====&lt;br /&gt;
While use of microsatellite and SNP markers are both ICAR certified methods of parentage verification they do not have the same power of parentage accuracy. Briefly the order of accuracy for ISAG and ICAR approved parentage marker panels are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Microsatellites &amp;lt;&amp;lt; small SNP panels (100 or less) &amp;lt; large SNP panels (500 or more)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This order is based on both genotyping accuracy and total genomic information.  Comparing the genomic marker error rate in cattle microsatellites have a 1-5% error rate (Baruch and Weller, 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Baruch, E., and J. I. Weller. 2008. &#039;Estimation of the number of SNP genetic markers required for parentage verification&#039;, &#039;&#039;Animal Genetics&#039;&#039;, 39: 474-79.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) while the  SNP error rate is &amp;lt;0.1% (Cooper, Wiggans, and VanRaden 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cooper, T. A., G. R. Wiggans, and P. M. VanRaden. 2013. &#039;Short communication: relationship of call rate and accuracy of single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes in dairy cattle&#039;, &#039;&#039;Journal of dairy science&#039;&#039;, 96: 3336-9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).  As 2-3 SNP provide the same parentage exclusion accuracy as 1 microsatellite marker (Vignal et al. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Vignal, A., D. Milan, M. SanCristobal, and A. Eggen. 2002. &#039;A review on SNP and other types of molecular markers and their use in animal genetics&#039;, &#039;&#039;Genet Sel Evol&#039;&#039;, 34: 275-305.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.4.4  Genomic quality control checks&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), the 100 and 200 ISAG parentage SNP panels are more accurate than the 12 ISAG parentage microsatellite markers.  In the same manner parentage panels of over 500 SNP (McClure et al. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;McClure, M. C., J. McCarthy, P. Flynn, J. C. McClure, E. Dair, D. K. O&#039;Connell, and J. F. Kearney. 2018. &#039;SNP Data Quality Control in a National Beef and Dairy Cattle System and Highly Accurate SNP Based Parentage Verification and Identification&#039;, &#039;&#039;Front Genet&#039;&#039;, 9: 84.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), such as the ICAR554, are recommended for parentage prediction which requires an even higher level of accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genomic quality control checks ====&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important parts of a large genomic database is to ensure that a genotype associated with an individual animal truly belongs to that animal.  Most large livestock genomic databases deal with SNP data only and the quality of SNP genotyping data is of paramount importance (Wu at al., Evaluation of genotyping concordance for commercial bovine SNP arrays using quality-assurance samples, Animal Genetics, 50: 367-371, 2019). This section, therefore, focuses on quality control for that genomic data type.  Both sample and SNP quality control measures are needed, and it is encouraged to develop a system for them early.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For those working with genotype data there are two main concerns.  First, is ensuring that the genotype data itself is of high quality and can be trusted. Second, is ensuring that the genotype truly belongs to the individual listed.  The recommended quality control checks below will work for any livestock species.  The basic checks can be performed with minimal information about the individual, while some of the advanced checks require data that not everyone will have, such as historic animal location. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Basic genotype quality control checks for SNP-based genotype data =====&lt;br /&gt;
Genotype: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Exclude SNP that have a genotype call rate below 90% when analyzed in your population.  Using 500 or more animals to determine the SNP call rate is recommended.  Chromosome Y SNP should have their call rate determined only in males for this filter.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Invalidate the individual’s genotype if its overall call rate is below &amp;lt;90%.  For SNP-based genotypes, such as those from Illumina or Affymetrix chips, the accuracy of called genotypes is questionable when the individual’s overall call rate is &amp;lt;90%.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Check to see that the animal has all three genotype classes (i.e.: AA, AB and BB) in its full genotype file. If any genotype class is missing or has a frequency below 20% then invalidate the full genotype.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Check to ensure that there are no unexpected alleles in the genotype file. For example, genotypes in AB format should not have T, G, 0, 1, 2 or 9.   If present, then invalidate the full genotype file.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parentage:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Parent (Sire or Dam) validation.   If using 200 or less SNP, a listed sire will validate if &amp;lt;1% of the offspring-parent genotypes are in conflict.  A conflicting genotype is where the offspring and listed parent have opposite homozygous genotypes.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Mating validation after parent validation.   For all parentage validation SNP where the animal is heterozygous, if for &amp;gt;1% of those SNP the sire and dam are homozygous for the same allele then the listed mating is invalidated.  This could represent a case where the offspring and one of the parents were mislabeled with the other’s identification (so the offspring’s genotype belongs to the sire or dam and vice versa). Under such cases, it is recommended to resample the DNA and regenotype, potentially with a panel that includes more SNP.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advanced quality control checks for SNP-based genotype data =====&lt;br /&gt;
Animal:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Parentage discovery.   Using SNP data to predict who an animal’s likely parent is can be very useful, but steps must be taken to ensure a very high probability that the prediction is accurate. The following are recommended:&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using 500 or more SNP that have a minor allele frequency (MAF) above 20% and call rates above 90%.   It is advised to calculate the MAF across your full population.  Predicted parents should have &amp;lt;1% conflict rate with the animal.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sex check. Make sure that you have a process established to ensure that only males are predicted as the sire and only females as the dam.&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of Birth check.  If you do not include a check that the predicted parent is older than the animal than the predicted individual could actually be an offspring of the animal.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Age gap.    Cattle normally reach sexual maturity at 11-12 months of age, but this can be as young as 8-9 months, and even younger if in-vitro fertilization is a technology used within the population.  Under normal circumstances, a minimum of 17 months between the birth dates of the animal and its predicted parent is recommended to ensure that the predicted parent could have been sexually mature at the time of the breeding.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Grey zone SNP conflicts.   The majority of animals will have &amp;lt;0.5% or &amp;gt;1.5% conflicting genotypes with the individual when parentage discovery is conducted. Those with &amp;lt;0.5% pass the prediction and those with &amp;gt;1.5% fail.  Most failed animals will have &amp;gt;8% conflict rates.  For those animals who have between 0.5 and 1.5% conflicting SNP when a set parentage panel is used (i.e.: the ICAR554 SNP list), it is advised that the conflict rate from all available SNP be used between the two individuals and if the percent conflicting is &amp;lt;1% they validate as the parent, but if &amp;gt;1% they fail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Genetic Relationship Matrix (GRM).  If an animal’s true parent is not genotyped, then it cannot be directly predicted or validated.  The genetic relationship between closely related animals can be used to suggest a potential, non-genotyped, parent. It is recommended that 7,000 or more SNP be used to calculate the GRM.  GRM results DO NOT validate a relationship, but only suggest.  Caution should be used as GRM values can be inflated for inbred individuals.  Full-sibs and parent-child should have GRM values around 50%, while half-sibs would be around 25%.  The range for each group can vary 5-10% from the expected value.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Sex prediction. How to perform a sex prediction depends on the type and number of SNP an animal has from the X and Y chromosomes.  While not every commercial chip includes chromosome Y SNP, they typically contain chromosome X markers.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pseudo autosomal region (PAR) SNP.  As both the X and Y chromosomes contain the PAR, SNP from this region should be excluded from sex prediction.  If the PAR position boundaries are not published for your species they can be roughly determined by analyzing the chromosome X SNP in known males and females and identifying the region where the MAF in males for a continuous set of SNP is &amp;gt;1%.  Non-PAR regions of chromosome X will have SNP with average MAF of &amp;lt;1% in males and &amp;gt;&amp;gt;1% in females. &lt;br /&gt;
# Chromosome X predicted.   Use non-PAR SNP to determine the animal’s chromosome X heterozygosity rate (number of heterozygous chromosome X SNP / total number of chromosome X SNP).  If the average heterozygosity rate is &amp;lt;5%, the predicted sex is male, and if &amp;gt;15% its female. If the rate is between 5 and 15% then the predicted sex is unknown.   &lt;br /&gt;
# Chromosome Y predicted.   Using chromosome Y SNP to predict sex is logically simpler but many commercial chips do not contain them.  Say you have 7 chromosome Y SNP with high call rates in males, it is recommended using the following logic.   Male is predicted when 6-7 of the Y SNP are present; female is predicted when &amp;lt;1 SNP is present and ambiguous sex is predicted when 2-5 Y SNP are present.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Ambiguous sex prediction.   If one set of sex chromosome SNP returns an ambiguous sex prediction and the other doesn’t it is recommended using the latter as the predicted sex.   If both SNP sets are ambiguous, the animal could have Turner syndrome (X0), or Klinefelter’s syndrome (XXY), in this case it is recommended returning an ambiguous predicted sex. &lt;br /&gt;
# If the predicted sex from the chromosome X and Y analysis disagree, it is recommended returning an ambiguous predicted sex. This could also indicate a possible Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) animal.   &lt;br /&gt;
# Sex selected AI semen straws.   Sex prediction should not be carried out on DNA obtained from sex selected AI semen straws. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Offspring Quality control.   The genotyped and listed offspring of an animal can be used to identify potential cases where the animal’s genotype actually belongs to another animal.  These should be used as flags to indicate a potential investigation, but it is recommended to temporarily invalidate the animal’s genotype until cleared.  Advised thresholds for those flags are:&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# AI sire: If &amp;gt;80% of genotyped offspring fail if &amp;gt;10 offspring are genotyped.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stock/herd bull: If &amp;gt;80% of genotyped offspring fail if &amp;gt;5 offspring are genotyped.&lt;br /&gt;
# Dam: If 100% of genotyped offspring fail if 2 offspring are genotyped, else if &amp;gt;5 offspring are genotyped then use &amp;gt;80%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Duplicate genotype.   The only case where two or more animals should share the exact same genotype is if they are identical twins or clones.  Checking to see if &amp;gt;1 animal has the same genotypes is a useful quality control check.  It is recommended using your parentage SNP set for initial screening and for any pair that have &amp;gt;99% identical genotypes and then using all available SNP to see if &amp;gt;99% of the genotypes match.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For standardization purposes with respect to the nomenclature of genes or loci, a web site is available at: https://www.genenames.org/about/guidelines#genenames and markers at: [https://hgvs-nomenclature.org/versions/21.0/ &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.HGVS.org/varnomen&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ICAR services related to DNA technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR offers three services that are related to the use of DNA all of which are linked to parentage analysis in one form or another, as shown in Figure 1. ICAR DNA services., and describing them in more detail in the other sections.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ICAR DNA service.png|thumb|Figure 1. ICAR DNA  services.|center|415x415px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ICAR certification of laboratories providing DNA genotyping services ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
Considering the need for high quality standards in all uses of molecular data, ICAR has for several years offered a certification service based on defined minimum requirements for laboratories providing DNA genotyping services. The basic requirements of this certification include proof of the minimum internal management quality assurance standards and a Rank 1 result from participation in the most recent biennial international ring test developed and offered by the International Society for Animal Genetics (ISAG). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, such laboratories generally have been analyzing the resulting genotypes to carry out microsatellite- and/or SNP-based parentage analysis services including either parentage verification or animal identification confirmation. This ICAR certification service has previously been used for recognizing the genotyping laboratory as a certified organization to provide parentage analysis functions without specifically testing the technical accuracy of doing so. Effective 2021, the SNP-based parentage analysis certification service for DNA Data Interpretation Centres has replaced the previous laboratory certification for SNP-based parentage verification. In the future, a similar technical process for the certification of microsatellite-based parentage analysis may be introduced by ICAR but until such time, the existing process for the certification of genotyping laboratories will remain in effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following guidelines for certification are provided for microsatellite- and SNP-based genotyping in cattle. Minimum requirements for additional species and other DNA tests may be defined in the future. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Scope ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are for the certification , by ICAR, of genotyping laboratories that analyze biological samples from cattle using microsatellite- and or SNP-based genotyping, which may be subsequently used for various levels of parentage analysis, genotype imputation, estimation of genomic breeding values and other activities related to genomic selection strategies. This certification process also includes parentage verification based on microsatellites since ICAR has not established this service as part of the portfolio of possible certifications for DNA data interpretation centres. For genotyping laboratories that would like to receive ICAR certification for SNP-based parentage verification, they must now apply separately to ICAR for its parallel service of parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres, as described in section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== ICAR Guidelines for certification of genotyping laboratories ===&lt;br /&gt;
The certification process comprises the following steps:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Application for certification &lt;br /&gt;
* Payment of relevant fee&lt;br /&gt;
* Review of application&lt;br /&gt;
* Granting of certification &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Application for certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Laboratories requesting certification only for microsatellite- based genotyping and parentage verification must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form as provided in [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-II-Application-Form-for-STR-Accreditation.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 2. Application form for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle&#039;&#039;.] Laboratories seeking ICAR certification involving SNP-based genotyping must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form as provided in [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-V-Application-Form-for-SNP-Accreditation.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 3. Application form for SNP-based genotyping required for parentage analysis in cattle.&#039;&#039;] Laboratories that have previously received ICAR certification for either service may re-apply prior to the expiry of any such certification using a shortened renewal form available on the ICAR web site. All application forms must be emailed to the ICAR secretariat at dna@icar.org and be filled out accurately and completely including the necessary documentation as required.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Payment of relevant fee ====  &lt;br /&gt;
Along with the completed application form, the applicant must also provide full payment of the relevant fee as established by ICAR and given in [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/guidelines-for-str-and-snp-based-parentage-testing-in-cattle/ &#039;&#039;Appendix 4. ICAR DNA Laboratory Certification Service fees&#039;&#039;.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Review of application ====&lt;br /&gt;
The application will be evaluated by a committee of experts appointed by ICAR that will either:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Approve the application&lt;br /&gt;
* Request additional information, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Reject the application &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the case of rejection, the laboratory may make a new submission as part of the ICAR annual call for applications for any subsequent year after the failed application. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Granting of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Certification will be given for a period of two calendar years with an expiry date of December 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; of the second year after receiving ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Renewal of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
In advance of the expiry date of any existing ICAR certification , normally during the same year of the December 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; expiry date, a laboratory can apply for renewal of their certification by submitting an application as described in section 3.3.1 above and successfully completing the other steps outlined in this section 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Laboratory certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Effective the 2022 ICAR call for certification of genotyping laboratories, ISO17025 certification , or an equivalent certification for ensuring quality internal management systems, is a mandatory requirement for SNP-based certification .  In addition, effective the 2022 call for certification of genotyping laboratories for microsatellite (STR)-based certification, ISO9001 certification will no longer be acceptable and only ISO17025, or an equivalent certification, will be an acceptable level of certification to ensure quality internal management systems. During the year of application for ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services, the applicant must provide proof of ISO17025 certification with an expiry date of October 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; of the following calendar year, or later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Participation and performance in ring test ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a biennial basis, initiated during even years (i.e.: 2022, 20246, etc…) and discussed at its biennial conference in odd years (2023, 2025, etc.), ISAG conducts an international ring (comparison) test of laboratories for both microsatellite- and SNP-based genotyping. The participation in ISAG and performance within these ring tests must be disclosed, and certificates provided to ICAR, when available. Applicants must also sign a release allowing ISAG to directly disclose their ring test results to ICAR. Participation in the most recent ISAG ring test is a minimum requirement to qualify for ICAR certification. For the ISAG microsatellite ring test, lab genotyping performance for the official set of 12 ISAG microsatellites must be disclosed. The committee of experts will decide performance thresholds for each ring test with due consideration for the structure of the ring test and the average performance of laboratories in the ring test that year. Only those laboratories achieving Rank 1 status in the most recent biennial ISAG ring test shall automatically qualify to receive ICAR certification as a genotyping laboratory. Laboratories achieving a Rank 2 status in the most recent ISAG ring test may qualify to receive ICAR certification, at the discretion of the committee of experts, but must provide evidence of Rank 1 status for previous ISAG ring tests as well as documentation outlining the cause of the Rank 2 result and any associated actions to mitigate similar outcomes in future ISAG ring tests. Laboratories achieving a status lower than Rank 2 in the most recent ISAG ring test do not qualify for ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Microsatellite markers ====&lt;br /&gt;
The names of all microsatellites typed on all animals (marker set I) and of the additional ones assayed in the case of unresolved parentage (marker set II) must be declared, as well as the number of animals typed in at least the last two years. The minimum requirement for international exchange is the complete set of 12 official ISAG microsatellite markers. To ensure sufficient experience within the lab, analysis of 500 animals per year is set as minimum requirement for microsatellite parentage verification certification. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/03-Annex-III-ISAG-microsatellites.pdf Appendix 5. ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle]&#039;&#039; contains the list of microsatellite markers recommended by ISAG and the method for calculating 1 parent and 2 parent exclusion probabilities. The rules for microsatellite-based parentage verification in cattle are described in &#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01-Annex-I-guidelines-microsats-STRs.pdf Appendix 6. Rules for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle]&#039;&#039;. Exclusion probability (PE; 2 parents and 1 parent) of each marker and of the complete marker sets must be calculated and provided in the application. The type of population and number of animals (minimum 150) used for computations are to be described. ICAR recommends using Holstein as a reference group when possible. The ICAR committee of experts will evaluate that an appropriate PE is reached for certification, on the basis of the population analyzed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== SNP markers ====&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR certification of SNP-based parentage verification is based on the full set of 200 SNP previously recommended by ISAG. The name of all SNP genotyped on all animals (marker set I, including the 100 “Core” SNP) and of the additional markers assayed in the case of unresolved parentage (marker set II, including the 100 “Additional” SNP) must be declared, as well as the number of animals SNP genotyped in at least the last two years. ICAR recommends using the full set of 200 SNP for parentage verification of all animals genotyped (&#039;&#039;see [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf Appendix 7. List of approved SNP for parentage verification in]&#039;&#039; [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf cattle]). ICAR may, however, based on scientific evidence, identify specific problematic SNP that must be excluded for parentage analysis, as described in the ICAR documentation related to the certification of DNA data interpretation centres outlined in section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Marker nomenclature ====&lt;br /&gt;
Nomenclature of markers must be described. ISAG nomenclature is required for the official ISAG 12 marker set as well as for the ISAG SNP marker set.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Certification of organisations performing SNP-based parentage analysis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the advent of SNP genotyping, the function of DNA genotyping as a laboratory activity can be separated from the functions of performing parentage verification and parentage discovery. Consequently, ICAR has established a separate certification for applying the results of SNP-based genotyping, which may be undertaken by laboratories, breed association societies, genetic evaluation centres and any other organization involved in parentage verification and/or the data processing of SNP genotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parentage verification and discovery are concerned with using the results that are delivered by the laboratories from DNA genotyping and require SNP genotypes for the animal itself, its recorded parents and other possible parents in the case of parentage discovery. Organizations undertaking this function may be service providers between laboratories that ICAR has certified for microsatellite- and or SNP-based DNA genotyping and end users that may include breed societies, breeding companies, breeders and commercial farmers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Service providers could use different laboratories for different breeds and/or species. Considering the importance of animal identification and parentage verification in animal recording, ICAR has decided to define the minimum requirements for using the results of DNA genotyping, and other information, for the purpose of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Parentage verification&lt;br /&gt;
# Parentage discovery, and&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal identification confirmation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a basis for the certification of processes used by organizations that use SNP genotypes in cattle. Minimum requirements for additional species and other DNA analyses may be defined in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Scope ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are for the certification, by ICAR, of organizations that use the results of SNP-based tests for parentage analysis in cattle, which includes parentage verification, parentage discovery, and/or animal identification confirmation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Certification of organizations performing parentage analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR certification process comprises the following steps:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Application for certification&lt;br /&gt;
* Payment of relevant fee&lt;br /&gt;
* Review of application&lt;br /&gt;
* Technical processing of test data files&lt;br /&gt;
* Granting of certification&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Application ====&lt;br /&gt;
Organizations carrying out SNP-based parentage analysis and requesting ICAR certification as a DNA Data Interpretation Centre must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form included below as [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/6-Annex-V-Application-Form-forICAR-Accreditation-of-DNA-Centres.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 8. Application form for organizations seeking ICAR parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres&#039;&#039;.] This form must be filled out accurately and completely, providing necessary documentation as required, and submitted to ICAR with payment of the appropriate fee. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Review of application ====&lt;br /&gt;
The application will first be reviewed internally by ICAR for its completeness and additional details may be requested as needed. ICAR administration will also confirm receipt of the applicable fee. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Technical processing of test files ====&lt;br /&gt;
The applicant organization will receive a set of data files from ICAR through the Interbull Centre, for processing using its existing procedures for carrying out the level of parentage analysis for which the applicant is seeking ICAR certification as a DNA Data Interpretation Centre. A detailed description of this step is described in [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/two-new-dna-based-services/dna-data-interpretation-centres/ &#039;&#039;Appendix 9. Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres.&#039;&#039;] In order for the applicant to be successful in obtaining the requested ICAR certification, it&#039;s procedures for conducting parentage analysis must exactly follow [https://www.icar.org/Documents/GenoEx/ICAR%20Guidelines%20for%20Parentage%20Verification%20and%20Parentage%20Discovery%20based%20on%20SNP.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 10. ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes&#039;&#039;.] The list of SNP to be used for either parentage verification (N=200) or parentage discovery (N=554) are available in [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-11-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification-or-discovery.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery&#039;&#039;.] Once the applicant has completed its internal parentage analysis procedures based on the certification test files it received, it must send a data file of results back to the Interbull Centre. A maximum time period for 90 calendar days will be allowed for the applicant to submit acceptable files of results back to the Interbull Centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Granting of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Once the Interbull Centre receives the file of parentage analysis results from the applicant, it will complete the technical review and determine if the applicant has successfully completed the certification or not. The Interbull Centre shall inform ICAR of the results and ICAR shall issue a formal notification to the applicant. In the event the applicant was not successful in receiving ICAR certification, the applicant may initiate a new request for certification by completing and submitting the appropriate forms and providing payment of the applicable fee, as outlined above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Renewal of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
In advance of the expiry date of any existing ICAR certification, which coincides with the two-year anniversary date of the current certification, an applicant can apply for renewal of their certification by submitting an application as described in section 4.3.1 above and successfully completing the other required steps outlined in this section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Genotype Exchange Service – GenoEx-PSE ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Effective 2018, ICAR has made available a genotype exchange service for parentage analysis, GenoEx-PSE, offered through the Interbull Centre. The main goal of this service is to facilitate the international exchange of SNP genotypes such that approved service users can carry out parentage analysis services at a national level in an efficient manner. The GenoEx-PSE database system and user interface has been developed to allow for the exchange of SNP genotypes for either parentage verification or parentage discovery based on the list of SNP provided in &#039;&#039;Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for an organization to qualify as a service user for GenoEx-PSE, it must first receive ICAR certification as a DNA data interpretation centre.  The level of such ICAR certification (i.e.: for SNP-based parentage verification alone or for both SNP-based parentage verification and discovery) shall determine the highest level of SNP that may be exchanged via the GenoEx-PSE service. For details associated with this ICAR service, refer to the GenoEx-PSE web site at [https://genoex.org/ www.GenoEx.org.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Parentage Verification Using Full SNP Comparisons ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The rapid growth of genomic resources and the availability of high-density SNP genotyping platforms have enabled a shift from the traditional ISAG parentage verification panel toward full-genome SNP comparisons. Parentage checks have so far been performed on the ISAG PV SET of 195 SNPs, with thresholds defined for acceptance, doubt, and rejection of parentage relationships. While this framework has proven effective, it is increasingly challenged by the diversity of commercial SNP chips and sequencing platforms, many of which no longer guarantee the inclusion of the ISAG markers. Moreover, in large-scale databases where biological samples cannot be re-collected, relying exclusively on a fixed marker panel limits the ability to perform accurate parentage checks. To address these challenges, certified organizations can decide to use whole-genome SNP comparisons for certification, using thresholds that have been developed and tested using over 200,000 animal pairs across five bovine dairy breeds .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While all genotyping technologies and SNP arrays can be used for this type of certiticates, ICAR recommends the removal from the analyses all SNP arrays and/or single SNPs that are known to underperform or provide low quality results. Also, ICAR recommends that only SNP arrays with more than 5,000 whole-genome SNPs are used for this kind of comparisons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method is based on comparing only SNPs that are homozygous in both individuals of a parent-offspring pair. Results are classified by the % of Mendelian inconsistencies (mendelian inconsistency count / total common homozygous count * 100) : &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Accepted&#039;&#039;&#039; (≤0.6%), &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Dubious&#039;&#039;&#039; (0.6–1.0%)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rejected&#039;&#039;&#039; (&amp;gt;1.0%). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These thresholds were shown to be consistent across breeds and across chip densities, indicating that they are robust and suitable for use as international benchmarks. Duo-based comparisons at densities above 5,000 SNPs provide sufficient discriminatory power to detect parentage errors, therefore trio comparisons are not recommended in case of whole-genome SNP comparison certification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The adoption of full-SNP parentage verification offers multiple advantages: it provides a scalable solution for animals genotyped with different platforms, it expands applicability to crossbreds and minor breeds (with due care to avoid ascertainment bias), and it enables the reuse of historical genotypes where ISAG SNPs are missing. While the computational requirements are higher than for fixed panels, duo-based verification can be performed efficiently even with modest hardware. This type of comparison can be used to complement or replace the ISAG PV SET for certification purposes, offering a scientifically robust path for integrating modern genomic data into international parentage certification. When both full-SNP and ISAG PV SET-basded options are available, full-SNP comparisons should be preferred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix list ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 1. Link to SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
[https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-1-Cattle-SNP-ISAG-core-additional-panel-2013.xlsx https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-1-Cattle-SNP-ISAG-core-additional-panel-2013.xlsx]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 2. Application form for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-II-Application-Form-for-STR-Accreditation.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the Form for ICAR laboratory certification for STR Microsatellite-based Parentage Testing in Cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 3. Application form for SNP-based genotyping required for parentage analysis in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-V-Application-Form-for-SNP-Accreditation.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the Form for ICAR laboratory certification for SNP-based genotyping required for Parentage Analysis in Cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 4.  ICAR DNA laboratory certification service fees ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/index.php/certifications/dna-certifications/guidelines-for-str-and-snp-based-parentage-testing-in-cattle/ here] on the ICAR website for DNA testing certification services fees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 5. ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/03-Annex-III-ISAG-microsatellites.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the list of ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 6. Rules for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01-Annex-I-guidelines-microsats-STRs.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the rules for microsatellite-based parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 7. List of approved SNP for parentage verification in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the ICAR approved list of 200 SNP for parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 8. Application form for organizations seeking ICAR parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/6-Annex-V-Application-Form-forICAR-Accreditation-of-DNA-Centres.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the application form for organizations seeking ICAR certification status as a DNA data interpretation centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 9. Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/index.php/certifications/dna-certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/two-new-dna-based-services/dna-data-interpretation-centres/ here] on the ICAR website for the Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 10. ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Documents/GenoEx/ICAR%20Guidelines%20for%20Parentage%20Verification%20and%20Parentage%20Discovery%20based%20on%20SNP.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-11-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification-or-discovery.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the list of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_04_%E2%80%93_DNA_Technology&amp;diff=5029</id>
		<title>Section 04 – DNA Technology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_04_%E2%80%93_DNA_Technology&amp;diff=5029"/>
		<updated>2026-05-20T08:26:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Molecular genetics */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Molecular genetics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
Advances in molecular biology, especially genomics, provide a new set of information to be incorporated into the animal industry. On one hand, the use of molecular information may contribute to the enhancement of consumers&#039; trust in the ability to monitor and control the animal production chain. On the other hand, molecular information will greatly contribute to the achievement of genetic improvement for animal traits through the use of genomic breeding values, marker assisted selection, gene introgression, heterosis prediction, pedigree validation/prediction, and genetic defect carrier status. In most cases, advantages of using molecular information via genomic evaluations, comes from improved accuracy of animal breeding values, shortened generation intervals, and increased intensity of selection. Even with these advancements there is still a need for research and development in the search for associations between genetic markers and traits of interest, especially as new traits are included in national evaluation indexes. In addition to that, even with the current incorporation of genomic information into national selection schemes, an understanding of gene action, gene interactions, and differential gene expression to avoid negative collateral effects is needed. Cooperation between animal industries and research is required for a successful and beneficial search for genetic information in commercial livestock populations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic markers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic markers are the fundamental molecular tools for genomics, even as the type of marker used has changed. The first genetic marker associations in livestock were reported using blood typing in the 1960s, the technology then moved to microsatellites (MS) in the 1990s and more recently to the use of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP). SNP and MS are polymorphic DNA sequences (alleles) at a specific locus of a particular chromosome.  While blood typing has been an ICAR approved method of parentage verification currently there are few, if any, commercial labs still offering this testing.  For this reason, ICAR no longer recommends blood typing as the basis for carrying out parentage analysis in livestock species where MS or SNP technology is widely available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Microsatellites ====&lt;br /&gt;
These are segments of DNA containing tandem repeats of simple motifs usually dimers or trimers. These segments are located throughout the genome and normally in non-coding regions. Over time, these regions are subject to the addition or subtraction of tandem repeats, which means that each microsatellite can have multiple unique alleles. Microsatellites are commonly used in many livestock species for parentage validation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) ====&lt;br /&gt;
SNP are the most common type of genetic variation: each SNP represents a variation in a single nucleotide. There are millions of SNP located throughout the genome of every livestock species. For genomics the most informative SNP traditionally are either located in (a) coding regions where different alleles change the structure or function of the encoded protein, or (b) at non-coding regions that are involved in the regulatory function of the gene.   For genomic breeding values, SNP that are located in other regions of the genome are also informative as they could be in linkage disequilibrium with alleles that do cause a phenotype change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the big advantages of SNP is their deployment on SNP arrays with a strong parallel processing capacity whereby thousands or hundreds of thousands of SNP can be screened together in a cost-effective and efficient manner across a large number of animals.  Currently, the largest livestock genotyping labs can process hundreds of thousands of animals yearly on such arrays.  The availability of these large SNP panels is therefore bolstering the search for mutations underlying genetic variation for simple and complex traits. It is also revolutionizing the speed at which trait associated genes or gene regions are being discovered as well as the adoption rate of genomic selection strategies. SNP genotypes have become the international standard for the basis of parentage analysis and ICAR recommends this approach over the use of microsatellites wherever possible due to the improved accuracy and the ease of comparing results between genotyping laboratories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Current and potential uses of DNA technologies ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Parentage verification and parental assignment authentication ====&lt;br /&gt;
Prior to the emergence of SNP genotyping, parentage verification was the main commercial use of genetic markers. Traditionally, parentage testing was based on the exclusion of relationship (i.e.: sire or dam) when an animal has a genotype inconsistent to a putative relationship. New trends in animal production systems are tending to encourage animal production in larger numbers per farm in response to environmental and production related constraints. In these large settings, multiple animals could be bred or give birth on the same day, which can result in more pedigree recording errors. As the cost of the analysis decreases and the number of genetic markers available increases, breed societies are now able to build up pedigree records using genetic markers to predict the pedigree of calves born in a herd at a given time. This normally requires a prior knowledge of candidate sires and dams for a calf when lower number (&amp;lt;200) of markers are used, but with enough SNP the correct parents can be predicted without prior knowledge being available as long as the parent is also genotyped. The probability of assignment to a correct pair of animals will depend on the number of markers used, number of alleles per loci, the minor allele frequency in the population, the number of parents, and the number of possible matings. The International Society of Animal Genetics (www.isag.us) has species-specific panels recommended of microsatellite and SNP markers for this purpose, which can be accessed via a link such as provided in &#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-1-Cattle-SNP-ISAG-core-additional-panel-2013.xlsx Appendix 1]. Link to SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification&#039;&#039;.  For cattle, ICAR has developed a set of parentage SNP, ICAR554, which incorporates the ISAG recommended panel and other highly informative SNP.  This panel allows for highly accurate parentage validation and discovery while not allowing for accurate imputation to a higher density.  Therefore, the ICAR554 panel can be shared among countries and competitors for parentage analysis without fear of others being able to use them to predict genomic breeding values. ICAR and the Interbull Centre collaborate in offering an international genotype exchange service, referred to as GenoEx, which is described further in Chapter 5 specifically for the exchange of SNP genotypes for the purposes of parentage analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Traceability and authentication of animal products offered to consumers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Due to multiple crises, including BSE outbreaks to ground beef containing horsemeat, and with increased consumer interest in where their food comes from the traceability of meat products is of greater concern to the industry. Traceability is based on the availability of a verification and control system that monitors all relevant details throughout the entire livestock production chain. Since an individual’s genetic sequence is unique and does not change, its DNA remains constant from ‘conception to consumption’. Therefore, use of genetic markers allows one to match the DNA of an individual at birth to the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic markers for the authentication of animal products for labels of quality related to geographic location and labels of quality related to specific breeds or their crosses are/or will be very useful. However, this requires the establishment of molecular standards or allele frequencies for each breed within a species. A lot of information is coming from studies of genetic diversity among breeds. Genomic regions subject to intense selection in each population are of particular interest.  With a large enough set of SNP and genotyped purebred reference animals it is also possible to predict the most likely breed composition of individuals.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Molecular genetic information for marker-assisted selection schemes ====&lt;br /&gt;
Quantitative traits are generally assumed to be controlled by a large number of genes. However, individual genes sometimes account for a significant amount of variation of the trait. Such is the case for the Myostatin gene and double muscling in beef cattle, the DGAT1 gene and milk components in dairy cattle, or the Booroola fecundity gene and ovulation rate in sheep. Since the genotype of an animal does not change during its lifetime, use of DNA information through the identification of markers linked to QTL with effects on production traits or the identification of a gene itself together with the causative variant is of great interest. Nevertheless, with complex traits there is a growing need of having a sufficiently large marker set to incorporate molecular information for selection decisions. Including genomic information as a selection criterion is of special interest for traits that are difficult and costly to measure and/or are measured late in life. By 2022, &amp;gt;177,000 cattle, &amp;gt;34,000 swine, &amp;gt;16,000 chicken and &amp;gt;4,000 sheep QTL have been identified that are associated with economically important traits such as health, carcass, milk, fertility, and body conformation.  The AnimalQTLdb database housed at the [https://www.animalgenome.org/ National Animal Genome Research Program] contains up to date information on cattle, chicken, horse, pig, trout, and sheep QTL data assembled from published data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording schemes have been collecting information for decades on the most common production traits measured in domestic livestock. There is an ever-increasing volume of information becoming available, but for some traits like meat quality, disease resistance and feed efficiency, those records are very expensive to measure, difficult to obtain, or are performed late in the animal’s life. Because of these challenges information for such traits is commonly collected on a reduced number of animals in any given population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For these challenging, but economically important traits, genetic markers and genomic selection offer significant opportunities for trait selection where it was not economically feasible before.  In general, genetic markers and genomics will play an important role for important traits regardless of the livestock species. Genomics can also allow us to increase selection intensities since we can predict genomic breeding values on a large number of animals and thus have more candidates for selection. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Disease resistance and genetic defects ====&lt;br /&gt;
Another group of traits with a high potential for the use of molecular data and genomics are those linked to resistance, resilience, and susceptibility to diseases. There are a number of multi-factorial or complex diseases that are the result of the interaction between an animal’s genome and environmental components. Disease resistance traits are among the most difficult to include in genetic improvement programs because they require good field measurement of the disease status of the animals and a systematic control of management or environmental conditions that allow for the identification of the environmental influence on the health status of the animal. Infectious diseases depend very much upon environmental factors such as the degree of exposure to the pathogen agent. Thus, if exposure is low, animals will show little variation. Part of the phenotypic differences for resistance may be differences in the degree of challenge. Therefore, if genes or genetic markers linked to resistance are correctly identified, resistant animals will be able to be selected on the base of their genomic information. For many diseases, identification of genes associated with resistance will require experimental conditions to be used. Genetic analysis to identify heterozygous carriers of genetic diseases caused by single, recessive genes are currently in use. Examples in dairy cattle include complex vertebral malformation (CVM), brachyspina (BY), cholesterol deficiency (CD) and several genes, gene regions or haplotypes causing embryo loss or stillbirth in different dairy breeds. In 2022, [https://www.omia.org/home/ OMIA (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals),] listed &amp;gt;1000 traits or genetic defects in livestock with a known causative mutation (cattle: 186, pig: 58, chicken: 56, sheep: 49, horse: 48, goat:17).  Including these causative allele or associated haplotypes in a breeding program will allow producers to minimize their risk from genetic defects while maximizing genetic progress from beneficial traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Technical aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== DNA collection ====&lt;br /&gt;
Systematic collection of DNA is recommended in several livestock populations. DNA may be obtained from any nuclear cell in the body. Protocols for DNA extraction are now available for blood (white cells), semen, saliva (epithelial cells), hair follicles, muscle, skin, organs (such as liver, spleen etc.). Red blood cells may also be used for poultry as they retain the nuclear body while most other species do not.  Small amounts of tissue material are required for routine DNA analysis. However, if there are multiple future uses of an individual’s DNA (whole genome sequencing, traceability, causative allele validations, …), then DNA storage costs, extraction costs, quality, and quantity obtained by different protocols will have to be carefully examined and optimized. Common collection methods include hair follicles, tissue samples (often ear punch) in an enclosed container, blood spots on filter paper, and nasal swabs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Data organization ====&lt;br /&gt;
A centralised database may be organised in respect to the main uses of the genetic information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Parent verification, assignment, and/or discovery&lt;br /&gt;
* Traceability of meat products&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed identification or breed diversity&lt;br /&gt;
* Qualitative and quantitative traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Database tables may contain:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal identification to link to all other information on the animal and its relatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of genetic markers: n&lt;br /&gt;
* Standard name of each marker i (for i= 1, n)&lt;br /&gt;
* Accession number for marker such as the dbSNP ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alleles for marker i&lt;br /&gt;
* Genomic location of marker i&lt;br /&gt;
* Effect of non-reference allele on the protein&lt;br /&gt;
* Phenotypic effect of the allele&lt;br /&gt;
* Association with other traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Parentage accuracy ====&lt;br /&gt;
While use of microsatellite and SNP markers are both ICAR certified methods of parentage verification they do not have the same power of parentage accuracy. Briefly the order of accuracy for ISAG and ICAR approved parentage marker panels are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Microsatellites &amp;lt;&amp;lt; small SNP panels (100 or less) &amp;lt; large SNP panels (500 or more)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This order is based on both genotyping accuracy and total genomic information.  Comparing the genomic marker error rate in cattle microsatellites have a 1-5% error rate (Baruch and Weller, 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Baruch, E., and J. I. Weller. 2008. &#039;Estimation of the number of SNP genetic markers required for parentage verification&#039;, &#039;&#039;Animal Genetics&#039;&#039;, 39: 474-79.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) while the  SNP error rate is &amp;lt;0.1% (Cooper, Wiggans, and VanRaden 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cooper, T. A., G. R. Wiggans, and P. M. VanRaden. 2013. &#039;Short communication: relationship of call rate and accuracy of single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes in dairy cattle&#039;, &#039;&#039;Journal of dairy science&#039;&#039;, 96: 3336-9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).  As 2-3 SNP provide the same parentage exclusion accuracy as 1 microsatellite marker (Vignal et al. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Vignal, A., D. Milan, M. SanCristobal, and A. Eggen. 2002. &#039;A review on SNP and other types of molecular markers and their use in animal genetics&#039;, &#039;&#039;Genet Sel Evol&#039;&#039;, 34: 275-305.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.4.4  Genomic quality control checks&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), the 100 and 200 ISAG parentage SNP panels are more accurate than the 12 ISAG parentage microsatellite markers.  In the same manner parentage panels of over 500 SNP (McClure et al. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;McClure, M. C., J. McCarthy, P. Flynn, J. C. McClure, E. Dair, D. K. O&#039;Connell, and J. F. Kearney. 2018. &#039;SNP Data Quality Control in a National Beef and Dairy Cattle System and Highly Accurate SNP Based Parentage Verification and Identification&#039;, &#039;&#039;Front Genet&#039;&#039;, 9: 84.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), such as the ICAR554, are recommended for parentage prediction which requires an even higher level of accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genomic quality control checks ====&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important parts of a large genomic database is to ensure that a genotype associated with an individual animal truly belongs to that animal.  Most large livestock genomic databases deal with SNP data only and the quality of SNP genotyping data is of paramount importance (Wu at al., Evaluation of genotyping concordance for commercial bovine SNP arrays using quality-assurance samples, Animal Genetics, 50: 367-371, 2019). This section, therefore, focuses on quality control for that genomic data type.  Both sample and SNP quality control measures are needed, and it is encouraged to develop a system for them early.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For those working with genotype data there are two main concerns.  First, is ensuring that the genotype data itself is of high quality and can be trusted. Second, is ensuring that the genotype truly belongs to the individual listed.  The recommended quality control checks below will work for any livestock species.  The basic checks can be performed with minimal information about the individual, while some of the advanced checks require data that not everyone will have, such as historic animal location. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Basic genotype quality control checks for SNP-based genotype data =====&lt;br /&gt;
Genotype: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Exclude SNP that have a genotype call rate below 90% when analyzed in your population.  Using 500 or more animals to determine the SNP call rate is recommended.  Chromosome Y SNP should have their call rate determined only in males for this filter.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Invalidate the individual’s genotype if its overall call rate is below &amp;lt;90%.  For SNP-based genotypes, such as those from Illumina or Affymetrix chips, the accuracy of called genotypes is questionable when the individual’s overall call rate is &amp;lt;90%.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Check to see that the animal has all three genotype classes (i.e.: AA, AB and BB) in its full genotype file. If any genotype class is missing or has a frequency below 20% then invalidate the full genotype.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Check to ensure that there are no unexpected alleles in the genotype file. For example, genotypes in AB format should not have T, G, 0, 1, 2 or 9.   If present, then invalidate the full genotype file.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parentage:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Parent (Sire or Dam) validation.   If using 200 or less SNP, a listed sire will validate if &amp;lt;1% of the offspring-parent genotypes are in conflict.  A conflicting genotype is where the offspring and listed parent have opposite homozygous genotypes.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Mating validation after parent validation.   For all parentage validation SNP where the animal is heterozygous, if for &amp;gt;1% of those SNP the sire and dam are homozygous for the same allele then the listed mating is invalidated.  This could represent a case where the offspring and one of the parents were mislabeled with the other’s identification (so the offspring’s genotype belongs to the sire or dam and vice versa). Under such cases, it is recommended to resample the DNA and regenotype, potentially with a panel that includes more SNP.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advanced quality control checks for SNP-based genotype data =====&lt;br /&gt;
Animal:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Parentage discovery.   Using SNP data to predict who an animal’s likely parent is can be very useful, but steps must be taken to ensure a very high probability that the prediction is accurate. The following are recommended:&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using 500 or more SNP that have a minor allele frequency (MAF) above 20% and call rates above 90%.   It is advised to calculate the MAF across your full population.  Predicted parents should have &amp;lt;1% conflict rate with the animal.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sex check. Make sure that you have a process established to ensure that only males are predicted as the sire and only females as the dam.&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of Birth check.  If you do not include a check that the predicted parent is older than the animal than the predicted individual could actually be an offspring of the animal.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Age gap.    Cattle normally reach sexual maturity at 11-12 months of age, but this can be as young as 8-9 months, and even younger if in-vitro fertilization is a technology used within the population.  Under normal circumstances, a minimum of 17 months between the birth dates of the animal and its predicted parent is recommended to ensure that the predicted parent could have been sexually mature at the time of the breeding.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Grey zone SNP conflicts.   The majority of animals will have &amp;lt;0.5% or &amp;gt;1.5% conflicting genotypes with the individual when parentage discovery is conducted. Those with &amp;lt;0.5% pass the prediction and those with &amp;gt;1.5% fail.  Most failed animals will have &amp;gt;8% conflict rates.  For those animals who have between 0.5 and 1.5% conflicting SNP when a set parentage panel is used (i.e.: the ICAR554 SNP list), it is advised that the conflict rate from all available SNP be used between the two individuals and if the percent conflicting is &amp;lt;1% they validate as the parent, but if &amp;gt;1% they fail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Genetic Relationship Matrix (GRM).  If an animal’s true parent is not genotyped, then it cannot be directly predicted or validated.  The genetic relationship between closely related animals can be used to suggest a potential, non-genotyped, parent. It is recommended that 7,000 or more SNP be used to calculate the GRM.  GRM results DO NOT validate a relationship, but only suggest.  Caution should be used as GRM values can be inflated for inbred individuals.  Full-sibs and parent-child should have GRM values around 50%, while half-sibs would be around 25%.  The range for each group can vary 5-10% from the expected value.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Sex prediction. How to perform a sex prediction depends on the type and number of SNP an animal has from the X and Y chromosomes.  While not every commercial chip includes chromosome Y SNP, they typically contain chromosome X markers.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pseudo autosomal region (PAR) SNP.  As both the X and Y chromosomes contain the PAR, SNP from this region should be excluded from sex prediction.  If the PAR position boundaries are not published for your species they can be roughly determined by analyzing the chromosome X SNP in known males and females and identifying the region where the MAF in males for a continuous set of SNP is &amp;gt;1%.  Non-PAR regions of chromosome X will have SNP with average MAF of &amp;lt;1% in males and &amp;gt;&amp;gt;1% in females. &lt;br /&gt;
# Chromosome X predicted.   Use non-PAR SNP to determine the animal’s chromosome X heterozygosity rate (number of heterozygous chromosome X SNP / total number of chromosome X SNP).  If the average heterozygosity rate is &amp;lt;5%, the predicted sex is male, and if &amp;gt;15% its female. If the rate is between 5 and 15% then the predicted sex is unknown.   &lt;br /&gt;
# Chromosome Y predicted.   Using chromosome Y SNP to predict sex is logically simpler but many commercial chips do not contain them.  Say you have 7 chromosome Y SNP with high call rates in males, it is recommended using the following logic.   Male is predicted when 6-7 of the Y SNP are present; female is predicted when &amp;lt;1 SNP is present and ambiguous sex is predicted when 2-5 Y SNP are present.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Ambiguous sex prediction.   If one set of sex chromosome SNP returns an ambiguous sex prediction and the other doesn’t it is recommended using the latter as the predicted sex.   If both SNP sets are ambiguous, the animal could have Turner syndrome (X0), or Klinefelter’s syndrome (XXY), in this case it is recommended returning an ambiguous predicted sex. &lt;br /&gt;
# If the predicted sex from the chromosome X and Y analysis disagree, it is recommended returning an ambiguous predicted sex. This could also indicate a possible Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) animal.   &lt;br /&gt;
# Sex selected AI semen straws.   Sex prediction should not be carried out on DNA obtained from sex selected AI semen straws. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Offspring Quality control.   The genotyped and listed offspring of an animal can be used to identify potential cases where the animal’s genotype actually belongs to another animal.  These should be used as flags to indicate a potential investigation, but it is recommended to temporarily invalidate the animal’s genotype until cleared.  Advised thresholds for those flags are:&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# AI sire: If &amp;gt;80% of genotyped offspring fail if &amp;gt;10 offspring are genotyped.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stock/herd bull: If &amp;gt;80% of genotyped offspring fail if &amp;gt;5 offspring are genotyped.&lt;br /&gt;
# Dam: If 100% of genotyped offspring fail if 2 offspring are genotyped, else if &amp;gt;5 offspring are genotyped then use &amp;gt;80%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Duplicate genotype.   The only case where two or more animals should share the exact same genotype is if they are identical twins or clones.  Checking to see if &amp;gt;1 animal has the same genotypes is a useful quality control check.  It is recommended using your parentage SNP set for initial screening and for any pair that have &amp;gt;99% identical genotypes and then using all available SNP to see if &amp;gt;99% of the genotypes match.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For standardization purposes with respect to the nomenclature of genes or loci, a web site is available at: https://www.genenames.org/about/guidelines#genenames and markers at: [https://hgvs-nomenclature.org/versions/21.0/ &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.HGVS.org/varnomen&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ICAR services related to DNA technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR offers three services that are related to the use of DNA all of which are linked to parentage analysis in one form or another, as shown in Figure 1. ICAR DNA services., and describing them in more detail in the other sections.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ICAR DNA service.png|thumb|Figure 1. ICAR DNA  services.|center|415x415px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ICAR certification of laboratories providing DNA genotyping services ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
Considering the need for high quality standards in all uses of molecular data, ICAR has for several years offered a certification service based on defined minimum requirements for laboratories providing DNA genotyping services. The basic requirements of this certification include proof of the minimum internal management quality assurance standards and a Rank 1 result from participation in the most recent biennial international ring test developed and offered by the International Society for Animal Genetics (ISAG). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, such laboratories generally have been analyzing the resulting genotypes to carry out microsatellite- and/or SNP-based parentage analysis services including either parentage verification or animal identification confirmation. This ICAR certification service has previously been used for recognizing the genotyping laboratory as a certified organization to provide parentage analysis functions without specifically testing the technical accuracy of doing so. Effective 2021, the SNP-based parentage analysis certification service for DNA Data Interpretation Centres has replaced the previous laboratory certification for SNP-based parentage verification. In the future, a similar technical process for the certification of microsatellite-based parentage analysis may be introduced by ICAR but until such time, the existing process for the certification of genotyping laboratories will remain in effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following guidelines for certification are provided for microsatellite- and SNP-based genotyping in cattle. Minimum requirements for additional species and other DNA tests may be defined in the future. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Scope ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are for the certification , by ICAR, of genotyping laboratories that analyze biological samples from cattle using microsatellite- and or SNP-based genotyping, which may be subsequently used for various levels of parentage analysis, genotype imputation, estimation of genomic breeding values and other activities related to genomic selection strategies. This certification process also includes parentage verification based on microsatellites since ICAR has not established this service as part of the portfolio of possible certifications for DNA data interpretation centres. For genotyping laboratories that would like to receive ICAR certification for SNP-based parentage verification, they must now apply separately to ICAR for its parallel service of parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres, as described in section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== ICAR Guidelines for certification of genotyping laboratories ===&lt;br /&gt;
The certification process comprises the following steps:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Application for certification &lt;br /&gt;
* Payment of relevant fee&lt;br /&gt;
* Review of application&lt;br /&gt;
* Granting of certification &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Application for certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Laboratories requesting certification only for microsatellite- based genotyping and parentage verification must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form as provided in [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-II-Application-Form-for-STR-Accreditation.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 2. Application form for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle&#039;&#039;.] Laboratories seeking ICAR certification involving SNP-based genotyping must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form as provided in [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-V-Application-Form-for-SNP-Accreditation.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 3. Application form for SNP-based genotyping required for parentage analysis in cattle.&#039;&#039;] Laboratories that have previously received ICAR certification for either service may re-apply prior to the expiry of any such certification using a shortened renewal form available on the ICAR web site. All application forms must be emailed to the ICAR secretariat at dna@icar.org and be filled out accurately and completely including the necessary documentation as required.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Payment of relevant fee ====  &lt;br /&gt;
Along with the completed application form, the applicant must also provide full payment of the relevant fee as established by ICAR and given in [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/guidelines-for-str-and-snp-based-parentage-testing-in-cattle/ &#039;&#039;Appendix 4. ICAR DNA Laboratory Certification Service fees&#039;&#039;.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Review of application ====&lt;br /&gt;
The application will be evaluated by a committee of experts appointed by ICAR that will either:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Approve the application&lt;br /&gt;
* Request additional information, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Reject the application &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the case of rejection, the laboratory may make a new submission as part of the ICAR annual call for applications for any subsequent year after the failed application. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Granting of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Certification will be given for a period of two calendar years with an expiry date of December 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; of the second year after receiving ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Renewal of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
In advance of the expiry date of any existing ICAR certification , normally during the same year of the December 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; expiry date, a laboratory can apply for renewal of their certification by submitting an application as described in section 3.3.1 above and successfully completing the other steps outlined in this section 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Laboratory certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Effective the 2022 ICAR call for certification of genotyping laboratories, ISO17025 certification , or an equivalent certification for ensuring quality internal management systems, is a mandatory requirement for SNP-based certification .  In addition, effective the 2022 call for certification of genotyping laboratories for microsatellite (STR)-based certification, ISO9001 certification will no longer be acceptable and only ISO17025, or an equivalent certification, will be an acceptable level of certification to ensure quality internal management systems. During the year of application for ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services, the applicant must provide proof of ISO17025 certification with an expiry date of October 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; of the following calendar year, or later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Participation and performance in ring test ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a biennial basis, initiated during even years (i.e.: 2022, 20246, etc…) and discussed at its biennial conference in odd years (2023, 2025, etc.), ISAG conducts an international ring (comparison) test of laboratories for both microsatellite- and SNP-based genotyping. The participation in ISAG and performance within these ring tests must be disclosed, and certificates provided to ICAR, when available. Applicants must also sign a release allowing ISAG to directly disclose their ring test results to ICAR. Participation in the most recent ISAG ring test is a minimum requirement to qualify for ICAR certification. For the ISAG microsatellite ring test, lab genotyping performance for the official set of 12 ISAG microsatellites must be disclosed. The committee of experts will decide performance thresholds for each ring test with due consideration for the structure of the ring test and the average performance of laboratories in the ring test that year. Only those laboratories achieving Rank 1 status in the most recent biennial ISAG ring test shall automatically qualify to receive ICAR certification as a genotyping laboratory. Laboratories achieving a Rank 2 status in the most recent ISAG ring test may qualify to receive ICAR certification, at the discretion of the committee of experts, but must provide evidence of Rank 1 status for previous ISAG ring tests as well as documentation outlining the cause of the Rank 2 result and any associated actions to mitigate similar outcomes in future ISAG ring tests. Laboratories achieving a status lower than Rank 2 in the most recent ISAG ring test do not qualify for ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Microsatellite markers ====&lt;br /&gt;
The names of all microsatellites typed on all animals (marker set I) and of the additional ones assayed in the case of unresolved parentage (marker set II) must be declared, as well as the number of animals typed in at least the last two years. The minimum requirement for international exchange is the complete set of 12 official ISAG microsatellite markers. To ensure sufficient experience within the lab, analysis of 500 animals per year is set as minimum requirement for microsatellite parentage verification certification. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/03-Annex-III-ISAG-microsatellites.pdf Appendix 5. ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle]&#039;&#039; contains the list of microsatellite markers recommended by ISAG and the method for calculating 1 parent and 2 parent exclusion probabilities. The rules for microsatellite-based parentage verification in cattle are described in &#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01-Annex-I-guidelines-microsats-STRs.pdf Appendix 6. Rules for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle]&#039;&#039;. Exclusion probability (PE; 2 parents and 1 parent) of each marker and of the complete marker sets must be calculated and provided in the application. The type of population and number of animals (minimum 150) used for computations are to be described. ICAR recommends using Holstein as a reference group when possible. The ICAR committee of experts will evaluate that an appropriate PE is reached for certification, on the basis of the population analyzed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== SNP markers ====&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR certification of SNP-based parentage verification is based on the full set of 200 SNP previously recommended by ISAG. The name of all SNP genotyped on all animals (marker set I, including the 100 “Core” SNP) and of the additional markers assayed in the case of unresolved parentage (marker set II, including the 100 “Additional” SNP) must be declared, as well as the number of animals SNP genotyped in at least the last two years. ICAR recommends using the full set of 200 SNP for parentage verification of all animals genotyped (&#039;&#039;see [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf Appendix 7. List of approved SNP for parentage verification in]&#039;&#039; [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf cattle]). ICAR may, however, based on scientific evidence, identify specific problematic SNP that must be excluded for parentage analysis, as described in the ICAR documentation related to the certification of DNA data interpretation centres outlined in section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Marker nomenclature ====&lt;br /&gt;
Nomenclature of markers must be described. ISAG nomenclature is required for the official ISAG 12 marker set as well as for the ISAG SNP marker set.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Certification of organisations performing SNP-based parentage analysis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the advent of SNP genotyping, the function of DNA genotyping as a laboratory activity can be separated from the functions of performing parentage verification and parentage discovery. Consequently, ICAR has established a separate certification for applying the results of SNP-based genotyping, which may be undertaken by laboratories, breed association societies, genetic evaluation centres and any other organization involved in parentage verification and/or the data processing of SNP genotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parentage verification and discovery are concerned with using the results that are delivered by the laboratories from DNA genotyping and require SNP genotypes for the animal itself, its recorded parents and other possible parents in the case of parentage discovery. Organizations undertaking this function may be service providers between laboratories that ICAR has certified for microsatellite- and or SNP-based DNA genotyping and end users that may include breed societies, breeding companies, breeders and commercial farmers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Service providers could use different laboratories for different breeds and/or species. Considering the importance of animal identification and parentage verification in animal recording, ICAR has decided to define the minimum requirements for using the results of DNA genotyping, and other information, for the purpose of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Parentage verification&lt;br /&gt;
# Parentage discovery, and&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal identification confirmation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a basis for the certification of processes used by organizations that use SNP genotypes in cattle. Minimum requirements for additional species and other DNA analyses may be defined in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Scope ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are for the certification, by ICAR, of organizations that use the results of SNP-based tests for parentage analysis in cattle, which includes parentage verification, parentage discovery, and/or animal identification confirmation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Certification of organizations performing parentage analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR certification process comprises the following steps:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Application for certification&lt;br /&gt;
* Payment of relevant fee&lt;br /&gt;
* Review of application&lt;br /&gt;
* Technical processing of test data files&lt;br /&gt;
* Granting of certification&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Application ====&lt;br /&gt;
Organizations carrying out SNP-based parentage analysis and requesting ICAR certification as a DNA Data Interpretation Centre must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form included below as [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/6-Annex-V-Application-Form-forICAR-Accreditation-of-DNA-Centres.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 8. Application form for organizations seeking ICAR parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres&#039;&#039;.] This form must be filled out accurately and completely, providing necessary documentation as required, and submitted to ICAR with payment of the appropriate fee. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Review of application ====&lt;br /&gt;
The application will first be reviewed internally by ICAR for its completeness and additional details may be requested as needed. ICAR administration will also confirm receipt of the applicable fee. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Technical processing of test files ====&lt;br /&gt;
The applicant organization will receive a set of data files from ICAR through the Interbull Centre, for processing using its existing procedures for carrying out the level of parentage analysis for which the applicant is seeking ICAR certification as a DNA Data Interpretation Centre. A detailed description of this step is described in [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/two-new-dna-based-services/dna-data-interpretation-centres/ &#039;&#039;Appendix 9. Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres.&#039;&#039;] In order for the applicant to be successful in obtaining the requested ICAR certification, it&#039;s procedures for conducting parentage analysis must exactly follow [https://www.icar.org/Documents/GenoEx/ICAR%20Guidelines%20for%20Parentage%20Verification%20and%20Parentage%20Discovery%20based%20on%20SNP.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 10. ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes&#039;&#039;.] The list of SNP to be used for either parentage verification (N=200) or parentage discovery (N=554) are available in [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-11-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification-or-discovery.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery&#039;&#039;.] Once the applicant has completed its internal parentage analysis procedures based on the certification test files it received, it must send a data file of results back to the Interbull Centre. A maximum time period for 90 calendar days will be allowed for the applicant to submit acceptable files of results back to the Interbull Centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Granting of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Once the Interbull Centre receives the file of parentage analysis results from the applicant, it will complete the technical review and determine if the applicant has successfully completed the certification or not. The Interbull Centre shall inform ICAR of the results and ICAR shall issue a formal notification to the applicant. In the event the applicant was not successful in receiving ICAR certification, the applicant may initiate a new request for certification by completing and submitting the appropriate forms and providing payment of the applicable fee, as outlined above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Renewal of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
In advance of the expiry date of any existing ICAR certification, which coincides with the two-year anniversary date of the current certification, an applicant can apply for renewal of their certification by submitting an application as described in section 4.3.1 above and successfully completing the other required steps outlined in this section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Genotype Exchange Service – GenoEx-PSE ==&lt;br /&gt;
Effective 2018, ICAR has made available a genotype exchange service for parentage analysis, GenoEx-PSE, offered through the Interbull Centre. The main goal of this service is to facilitate the international exchange of SNP genotypes such that approved service users can carry out parentage analysis services at a national level in an efficient manner. The GenoEx-PSE database system and user interface has been developed to allow for the exchange of SNP genotypes for either parentage verification or parentage discovery based on the list of SNP provided in &#039;&#039;Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for an organization to qualify as a service user for GenoEx-PSE, it must first receive ICAR certification as a DNA data interpretation centre.  The level of such ICAR certification (i.e.: for SNP-based parentage verification alone or for both SNP-based parentage verification and discovery) shall determine the highest level of SNP that may be exchanged via the GenoEx-PSE service. For details associated with this ICAR service, refer to the GenoEx-PSE web site at [https://genoex.org/ www.GenoEx.org.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Parentage Verification Using Full SNP Comparisons ==&lt;br /&gt;
The rapid growth of genomic resources and the availability of high-density SNP genotyping platforms have enabled a shift from the traditional ISAG parentage verification panel toward full-genome SNP comparisons. Parentage checks have so far been performed on the ISAG PV SET of 195 SNPs, with thresholds defined for acceptance, doubt, and rejection of parentage relationships. While this framework has proven effective, it is increasingly challenged by the diversity of commercial SNP chips and sequencing platforms, many of which no longer guarantee the inclusion of the ISAG markers. Moreover, in large-scale databases where biological samples cannot be re-collected, relying exclusively on a fixed marker panel limits the ability to perform accurate parentage checks. To address these challenges, certified organizations can decide to use whole-genome SNP comparisons for certification, using thresholds that have been developed and tested using over 200,000 animal pairs across five bovine dairy breeds .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While all genotyping technologies and SNP arrays can be used for this type of certiticates, ICAR recommends the removal from the analyses all SNP arrays and/or single SNPs that are known to underperform or provide low quality results. Also, ICAR recommends that only SNP arrays with more than 5,000 whole-genome SNPs are used for this kind of comparisons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The method is based on comparing only SNPs that are homozygous in both individuals of a parent-offspring pair. Results are classified by the % of Mendelian inconsistencies (mendelian inconsistency count / total common homozygous count * 100) : &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Accepted&#039;&#039;&#039; (≤0.6%), &lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Dubious&#039;&#039;&#039; (0.6–1.0%)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rejected&#039;&#039;&#039; (&amp;gt;1.0%). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These thresholds were shown to be consistent across breeds and across chip densities, indicating that they are robust and suitable for use as international benchmarks. Duo-based comparisons at densities above 5,000 SNPs provide sufficient discriminatory power to detect parentage errors, therefore trio comparisons are not recommended in case of whole-genome SNP comparison certification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The adoption of full-SNP parentage verification offers multiple advantages: it provides a scalable solution for animals genotyped with different platforms, it expands applicability to crossbreds and minor breeds (with due care to avoid ascertainment bias), and it enables the reuse of historical genotypes where ISAG SNPs are missing. While the computational requirements are higher than for fixed panels, duo-based verification can be performed efficiently even with modest hardware. This type of comparison can be used to complement or replace the ISAG PV SET for certification purposes, offering a scientifically robust path for integrating modern genomic data into international parentage certification. When both full-SNP and ISAG PV SET-basded options are available, full-SNP comparisons should be preferred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix list ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 1. Link to SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
[https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-1-Cattle-SNP-ISAG-core-additional-panel-2013.xlsx https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-1-Cattle-SNP-ISAG-core-additional-panel-2013.xlsx]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 2. Application form for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-II-Application-Form-for-STR-Accreditation.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the Form for ICAR laboratory certification for STR Microsatellite-based Parentage Testing in Cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 3. Application form for SNP-based genotyping required for parentage analysis in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-V-Application-Form-for-SNP-Accreditation.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the Form for ICAR laboratory certification for SNP-based genotyping required for Parentage Analysis in Cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 4.  ICAR DNA laboratory certification service fees ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/index.php/certifications/dna-certifications/guidelines-for-str-and-snp-based-parentage-testing-in-cattle/ here] on the ICAR website for DNA testing certification services fees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 5. ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/03-Annex-III-ISAG-microsatellites.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the list of ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 6. Rules for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01-Annex-I-guidelines-microsats-STRs.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the rules for microsatellite-based parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 7. List of approved SNP for parentage verification in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the ICAR approved list of 200 SNP for parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 8. Application form for organizations seeking ICAR parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/6-Annex-V-Application-Form-forICAR-Accreditation-of-DNA-Centres.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the application form for organizations seeking ICAR certification status as a DNA data interpretation centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 9. Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/index.php/certifications/dna-certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/two-new-dna-based-services/dna-data-interpretation-centres/ here] on the ICAR website for the Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 10. ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Documents/GenoEx/ICAR%20Guidelines%20for%20Parentage%20Verification%20and%20Parentage%20Discovery%20based%20on%20SNP.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-11-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification-or-discovery.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the list of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_04_%E2%80%93_DNA_Technology&amp;diff=5028</id>
		<title>Section 04 – DNA Technology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_04_%E2%80%93_DNA_Technology&amp;diff=5028"/>
		<updated>2026-05-20T08:24:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Genotype Exchange Service – GenoEx-PSE */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Molecular genetics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
Advances in molecular biology, especially genomics, provide a new set of information to be incorporated into the animal industry. On one hand, the use of molecular information may contribute to the enhancement of consumers&#039; trust in the ability to monitor and control the animal production chain. On the other hand, molecular information will greatly contribute to the achievement of genetic improvement for animal traits through the use of genomic breeding values, marker assisted selection, gene introgression, heterosis prediction, pedigree validation/prediction, and genetic defect carrier status. In most cases, advantages of using molecular information via genomic evaluations, comes from improved accuracy of animal breeding values, shortened generation intervals, and increased intensity of selection. Even with these advancements there is still a need for research and development in the search for associations between genetic markers and traits of interest, especially as new traits are included in national evaluation indexes. In addition to that, even with the current incorporation of genomic information into national selection schemes, an understanding of gene action, gene interactions, and differential gene expression to avoid negative collateral effects is needed. Cooperation between animal industries and research is required for a successful and beneficial search for genetic information in commercial livestock populations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic markers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic markers are the fundamental molecular tools for genomics, even as the type of marker used has changed. The first genetic marker associations in livestock were reported using blood typing in the 1960s, the technology then moved to microsatellites (MS) in the 1990s and more recently to the use of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP). SNP and MS are polymorphic DNA sequences (alleles) at a specific locus of a particular chromosome.  While blood typing has been an ICAR approved method of parentage verification currently there are few, if any, commercial labs still offering this testing.  For this reason, ICAR no longer recommends blood typing as the basis for carrying out parentage analysis in livestock species where MS or SNP technology is widely available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Microsatellites ====&lt;br /&gt;
These are segments of DNA containing tandem repeats of simple motifs usually dimers or trimers. These segments are located throughout the genome and normally in non-coding regions. Over time, these regions are subject to the addition or subtraction of tandem repeats, which means that each microsatellite can have multiple unique alleles. Microsatellites are commonly used in many livestock species for parentage validation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) ====&lt;br /&gt;
SNP are the most common type of genetic variation: each SNP represents a variation in a single nucleotide. There are millions of SNP located throughout the genome of every livestock species. For genomics the most informative SNP traditionally are either located in (a) coding regions where different alleles change the structure or function of the encoded protein, or (b) at non-coding regions that are involved in the regulatory function of the gene.   For genomic breeding values, SNP that are located in other regions of the genome are also informative as they could be in linkage disequilibrium with alleles that do cause a phenotype change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the big advantages of SNP is their deployment on SNP arrays with a strong parallel processing capacity whereby thousands or hundreds of thousands of SNP can be screened together in a cost-effective and efficient manner across a large number of animals.  Currently, the largest livestock genotyping labs can process hundreds of thousands of animals yearly on such arrays.  The availability of these large SNP panels is therefore bolstering the search for mutations underlying genetic variation for simple and complex traits. It is also revolutionizing the speed at which trait associated genes or gene regions are being discovered as well as the adoption rate of genomic selection strategies. SNP genotypes have become the international standard for the basis of parentage analysis and ICAR recommends this approach over the use of microsatellites wherever possible due to the improved accuracy and the ease of comparing results between genotyping laboratories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Current and potential uses of DNA technologies ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Parentage verification and parental assignment authentication ====&lt;br /&gt;
Prior to the emergence of SNP genotyping, parentage verification was the main commercial use of genetic markers. Traditionally, parentage testing was based on the exclusion of relationship (i.e.: sire or dam) when an animal has a genotype inconsistent to a putative relationship. New trends in animal production systems are tending to encourage animal production in larger numbers per farm in response to environmental and production related constraints. In these large settings, multiple animals could be bred or give birth on the same day, which can result in more pedigree recording errors. As the cost of the analysis decreases and the number of genetic markers available increases, breed societies are now able to build up pedigree records using genetic markers to predict the pedigree of calves born in a herd at a given time. This normally requires a prior knowledge of candidate sires and dams for a calf when lower number (&amp;lt;200) of markers are used, but with enough SNP the correct parents can be predicted without prior knowledge being available as long as the parent is also genotyped. The probability of assignment to a correct pair of animals will depend on the number of markers used, number of alleles per loci, the minor allele frequency in the population, the number of parents, and the number of possible matings. The International Society of Animal Genetics (www.isag.us) has species-specific panels recommended of microsatellite and SNP markers for this purpose, which can be accessed via a link such as provided in &#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-1-Cattle-SNP-ISAG-core-additional-panel-2013.xlsx Appendix 1]. Link to SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification&#039;&#039;.  For cattle, ICAR has developed a set of parentage SNP, ICAR554, which incorporates the ISAG recommended panel and other highly informative SNP.  This panel allows for highly accurate parentage validation and discovery while not allowing for accurate imputation to a higher density.  Therefore, the ICAR554 panel can be shared among countries and competitors for parentage analysis without fear of others being able to use them to predict genomic breeding values. ICAR and the Interbull Centre collaborate in offering an international genotype exchange service, referred to as GenoEx, which is described further in Chapter 5 specifically for the exchange of SNP genotypes for the purposes of parentage analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Traceability and authentication of animal products offered to consumers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Due to multiple crises, including BSE outbreaks to ground beef containing horsemeat, and with increased consumer interest in where their food comes from the traceability of meat products is of greater concern to the industry. Traceability is based on the availability of a verification and control system that monitors all relevant details throughout the entire livestock production chain. Since an individual’s genetic sequence is unique and does not change, its DNA remains constant from ‘conception to consumption’. Therefore, use of genetic markers allows one to match the DNA of an individual at birth to the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic markers for the authentication of animal products for labels of quality related to geographic location and labels of quality related to specific breeds or their crosses are/or will be very useful. However, this requires the establishment of molecular standards or allele frequencies for each breed within a species. A lot of information is coming from studies of genetic diversity among breeds. Genomic regions subject to intense selection in each population are of particular interest.  With a large enough set of SNP and genotyped purebred reference animals it is also possible to predict the most likely breed composition of individuals.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Molecular genetic information for marker-assisted selection schemes ====&lt;br /&gt;
Quantitative traits are generally assumed to be controlled by a large number of genes. However, individual genes sometimes account for a significant amount of variation of the trait. Such is the case for the Myostatin gene and double muscling in beef cattle, the DGAT1 gene and milk components in dairy cattle, or the Booroola fecundity gene and ovulation rate in sheep. Since the genotype of an animal does not change during its lifetime, use of DNA information through the identification of markers linked to QTL with effects on production traits or the identification of a gene itself together with the causative variant is of great interest. Nevertheless, with complex traits there is a growing need of having a sufficiently large marker set to incorporate molecular information for selection decisions. Including genomic information as a selection criterion is of special interest for traits that are difficult and costly to measure and/or are measured late in life. By 2022, &amp;gt;177,000 cattle, &amp;gt;34,000 swine, &amp;gt;16,000 chicken and &amp;gt;4,000 sheep QTL have been identified that are associated with economically important traits such as health, carcass, milk, fertility, and body conformation.  The AnimalQTLdb database housed at the [https://www.animalgenome.org/ National Animal Genome Research Program] contains up to date information on cattle, chicken, horse, pig, trout, and sheep QTL data assembled from published data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording schemes have been collecting information for decades on the most common production traits measured in domestic livestock. There is an ever-increasing volume of information becoming available, but for some traits like meat quality, disease resistance and feed efficiency, those records are very expensive to measure, difficult to obtain, or are performed late in the animal’s life. Because of these challenges information for such traits is commonly collected on a reduced number of animals in any given population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For these challenging, but economically important traits, genetic markers and genomic selection offer significant opportunities for trait selection where it was not economically feasible before.  In general, genetic markers and genomics will play an important role for important traits regardless of the livestock species. Genomics can also allow us to increase selection intensities since we can predict genomic breeding values on a large number of animals and thus have more candidates for selection. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Disease resistance and genetic defects ====&lt;br /&gt;
Another group of traits with a high potential for the use of molecular data and genomics are those linked to resistance, resilience, and susceptibility to diseases. There are a number of multi-factorial or complex diseases that are the result of the interaction between an animal’s genome and environmental components. Disease resistance traits are among the most difficult to include in genetic improvement programs because they require good field measurement of the disease status of the animals and a systematic control of management or environmental conditions that allow for the identification of the environmental influence on the health status of the animal. Infectious diseases depend very much upon environmental factors such as the degree of exposure to the pathogen agent. Thus, if exposure is low, animals will show little variation. Part of the phenotypic differences for resistance may be differences in the degree of challenge. Therefore, if genes or genetic markers linked to resistance are correctly identified, resistant animals will be able to be selected on the base of their genomic information. For many diseases, identification of genes associated with resistance will require experimental conditions to be used. Genetic analysis to identify heterozygous carriers of genetic diseases caused by single, recessive genes are currently in use. Examples in dairy cattle include complex vertebral malformation (CVM), brachyspina (BY), cholesterol deficiency (CD) and several genes, gene regions or haplotypes causing embryo loss or stillbirth in different dairy breeds. In 2022, [https://www.omia.org/home/ OMIA (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals),] listed &amp;gt;1000 traits or genetic defects in livestock with a known causative mutation (cattle: 186, pig: 58, chicken: 56, sheep: 49, horse: 48, goat:17).  Including these causative allele or associated haplotypes in a breeding program will allow producers to minimize their risk from genetic defects while maximizing genetic progress from beneficial traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Technical aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== DNA collection ====&lt;br /&gt;
Systematic collection of DNA is recommended in several livestock populations. DNA may be obtained from any nuclear cell in the body. Protocols for DNA extraction are now available for blood (white cells), semen, saliva (epithelial cells), hair follicles, muscle, skin, organs (such as liver, spleen etc.). Red blood cells may also be used for poultry as they retain the nuclear body while most other species do not.  Small amounts of tissue material are required for routine DNA analysis. However, if there are multiple future uses of an individual’s DNA (whole genome sequencing, traceability, causative allele validations, …), then DNA storage costs, extraction costs, quality, and quantity obtained by different protocols will have to be carefully examined and optimized. Common collection methods include hair follicles, tissue samples (often ear punch) in an enclosed container, blood spots on filter paper, and nasal swabs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Data organization ====&lt;br /&gt;
A centralised database may be organised in respect to the main uses of the genetic information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Parent verification, assignment, and/or discovery&lt;br /&gt;
* Traceability of meat products&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed identification or breed diversity&lt;br /&gt;
* Qualitative and quantitative traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Database tables may contain:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal identification to link to all other information on the animal and its relatives.&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of genetic markers: n&lt;br /&gt;
* Standard name of each marker i (for i= 1, n)&lt;br /&gt;
* Accession number for marker such as the dbSNP ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alleles for marker i&lt;br /&gt;
* Genomic location of marker i&lt;br /&gt;
* Effect of non-reference allele on the protein&lt;br /&gt;
* Phenotypic effect of the allele&lt;br /&gt;
* Association with other traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Parentage accuracy ====&lt;br /&gt;
While use of microsatellite and SNP markers are both ICAR certified methods of parentage verification they do not have the same power of parentage accuracy. Briefly the order of accuracy for ISAG and ICAR approved parentage marker panels are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Microsatellites &amp;lt;&amp;lt; small SNP panels (100 or less) &amp;lt; large SNP panels (500 or more)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This order is based on both genotyping accuracy and total genomic information.  Comparing the genomic marker error rate in cattle microsatellites have a 1-5% error rate (Baruch and Weller, 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Baruch, E., and J. I. Weller. 2008. &#039;Estimation of the number of SNP genetic markers required for parentage verification&#039;, &#039;&#039;Animal Genetics&#039;&#039;, 39: 474-79.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) while the  SNP error rate is &amp;lt;0.1% (Cooper, Wiggans, and VanRaden 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cooper, T. A., G. R. Wiggans, and P. M. VanRaden. 2013. &#039;Short communication: relationship of call rate and accuracy of single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes in dairy cattle&#039;, &#039;&#039;Journal of dairy science&#039;&#039;, 96: 3336-9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).  As 2-3 SNP provide the same parentage exclusion accuracy as 1 microsatellite marker (Vignal et al. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Vignal, A., D. Milan, M. SanCristobal, and A. Eggen. 2002. &#039;A review on SNP and other types of molecular markers and their use in animal genetics&#039;, &#039;&#039;Genet Sel Evol&#039;&#039;, 34: 275-305.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.4.4  Genomic quality control checks&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), the 100 and 200 ISAG parentage SNP panels are more accurate than the 12 ISAG parentage microsatellite markers.  In the same manner parentage panels of over 500 SNP (McClure et al. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;McClure, M. C., J. McCarthy, P. Flynn, J. C. McClure, E. Dair, D. K. O&#039;Connell, and J. F. Kearney. 2018. &#039;SNP Data Quality Control in a National Beef and Dairy Cattle System and Highly Accurate SNP Based Parentage Verification and Identification&#039;, &#039;&#039;Front Genet&#039;&#039;, 9: 84.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), such as the ICAR554, are recommended for parentage prediction which requires an even higher level of accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genomic quality control checks ====&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important parts of a large genomic database is to ensure that a genotype associated with an individual animal truly belongs to that animal.  Most large livestock genomic databases deal with SNP data only and the quality of SNP genotyping data is of paramount importance (Wu at al., Evaluation of genotyping concordance for commercial bovine SNP arrays using quality-assurance samples, Animal Genetics, 50: 367-371, 2019). This section, therefore, focuses on quality control for that genomic data type.  Both sample and SNP quality control measures are needed, and it is encouraged to develop a system for them early.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For those working with genotype data there are two main concerns.  First, is ensuring that the genotype data itself is of high quality and can be trusted. Second, is ensuring that the genotype truly belongs to the individual listed.  The recommended quality control checks below will work for any livestock species.  The basic checks can be performed with minimal information about the individual, while some of the advanced checks require data that not everyone will have, such as historic animal location. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Basic genotype quality control checks for SNP-based genotype data =====&lt;br /&gt;
Genotype: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Exclude SNP that have a genotype call rate below 90% when analyzed in your population.  Using 500 or more animals to determine the SNP call rate is recommended.  Chromosome Y SNP should have their call rate determined only in males for this filter.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Invalidate the individual’s genotype if its overall call rate is below &amp;lt;90%.  For SNP-based genotypes, such as those from Illumina or Affymetrix chips, the accuracy of called genotypes is questionable when the individual’s overall call rate is &amp;lt;90%.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Check to see that the animal has all three genotype classes (i.e.: AA, AB and BB) in its full genotype file. If any genotype class is missing or has a frequency below 20% then invalidate the full genotype.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Check to ensure that there are no unexpected alleles in the genotype file. For example, genotypes in AB format should not have T, G, 0, 1, 2 or 9.   If present, then invalidate the full genotype file.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parentage:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Parent (Sire or Dam) validation.   If using 200 or less SNP, a listed sire will validate if &amp;lt;1% of the offspring-parent genotypes are in conflict.  A conflicting genotype is where the offspring and listed parent have opposite homozygous genotypes.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Mating validation after parent validation.   For all parentage validation SNP where the animal is heterozygous, if for &amp;gt;1% of those SNP the sire and dam are homozygous for the same allele then the listed mating is invalidated.  This could represent a case where the offspring and one of the parents were mislabeled with the other’s identification (so the offspring’s genotype belongs to the sire or dam and vice versa). Under such cases, it is recommended to resample the DNA and regenotype, potentially with a panel that includes more SNP.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Advanced quality control checks for SNP-based genotype data =====&lt;br /&gt;
Animal:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type:number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Parentage discovery.   Using SNP data to predict who an animal’s likely parent is can be very useful, but steps must be taken to ensure a very high probability that the prediction is accurate. The following are recommended:&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Using 500 or more SNP that have a minor allele frequency (MAF) above 20% and call rates above 90%.   It is advised to calculate the MAF across your full population.  Predicted parents should have &amp;lt;1% conflict rate with the animal.&lt;br /&gt;
# Sex check. Make sure that you have a process established to ensure that only males are predicted as the sire and only females as the dam.&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of Birth check.  If you do not include a check that the predicted parent is older than the animal than the predicted individual could actually be an offspring of the animal.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Age gap.    Cattle normally reach sexual maturity at 11-12 months of age, but this can be as young as 8-9 months, and even younger if in-vitro fertilization is a technology used within the population.  Under normal circumstances, a minimum of 17 months between the birth dates of the animal and its predicted parent is recommended to ensure that the predicted parent could have been sexually mature at the time of the breeding.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Grey zone SNP conflicts.   The majority of animals will have &amp;lt;0.5% or &amp;gt;1.5% conflicting genotypes with the individual when parentage discovery is conducted. Those with &amp;lt;0.5% pass the prediction and those with &amp;gt;1.5% fail.  Most failed animals will have &amp;gt;8% conflict rates.  For those animals who have between 0.5 and 1.5% conflicting SNP when a set parentage panel is used (i.e.: the ICAR554 SNP list), it is advised that the conflict rate from all available SNP be used between the two individuals and if the percent conflicting is &amp;lt;1% they validate as the parent, but if &amp;gt;1% they fail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Genetic Relationship Matrix (GRM).  If an animal’s true parent is not genotyped, then it cannot be directly predicted or validated.  The genetic relationship between closely related animals can be used to suggest a potential, non-genotyped, parent. It is recommended that 7,000 or more SNP be used to calculate the GRM.  GRM results DO NOT validate a relationship, but only suggest.  Caution should be used as GRM values can be inflated for inbred individuals.  Full-sibs and parent-child should have GRM values around 50%, while half-sibs would be around 25%.  The range for each group can vary 5-10% from the expected value.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Sex prediction. How to perform a sex prediction depends on the type and number of SNP an animal has from the X and Y chromosomes.  While not every commercial chip includes chromosome Y SNP, they typically contain chromosome X markers.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pseudo autosomal region (PAR) SNP.  As both the X and Y chromosomes contain the PAR, SNP from this region should be excluded from sex prediction.  If the PAR position boundaries are not published for your species they can be roughly determined by analyzing the chromosome X SNP in known males and females and identifying the region where the MAF in males for a continuous set of SNP is &amp;gt;1%.  Non-PAR regions of chromosome X will have SNP with average MAF of &amp;lt;1% in males and &amp;gt;&amp;gt;1% in females. &lt;br /&gt;
# Chromosome X predicted.   Use non-PAR SNP to determine the animal’s chromosome X heterozygosity rate (number of heterozygous chromosome X SNP / total number of chromosome X SNP).  If the average heterozygosity rate is &amp;lt;5%, the predicted sex is male, and if &amp;gt;15% its female. If the rate is between 5 and 15% then the predicted sex is unknown.   &lt;br /&gt;
# Chromosome Y predicted.   Using chromosome Y SNP to predict sex is logically simpler but many commercial chips do not contain them.  Say you have 7 chromosome Y SNP with high call rates in males, it is recommended using the following logic.   Male is predicted when 6-7 of the Y SNP are present; female is predicted when &amp;lt;1 SNP is present and ambiguous sex is predicted when 2-5 Y SNP are present.  &lt;br /&gt;
# Ambiguous sex prediction.   If one set of sex chromosome SNP returns an ambiguous sex prediction and the other doesn’t it is recommended using the latter as the predicted sex.   If both SNP sets are ambiguous, the animal could have Turner syndrome (X0), or Klinefelter’s syndrome (XXY), in this case it is recommended returning an ambiguous predicted sex. &lt;br /&gt;
# If the predicted sex from the chromosome X and Y analysis disagree, it is recommended returning an ambiguous predicted sex. This could also indicate a possible Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) animal.   &lt;br /&gt;
# Sex selected AI semen straws.   Sex prediction should not be carried out on DNA obtained from sex selected AI semen straws. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Offspring Quality control.   The genotyped and listed offspring of an animal can be used to identify potential cases where the animal’s genotype actually belongs to another animal.  These should be used as flags to indicate a potential investigation, but it is recommended to temporarily invalidate the animal’s genotype until cleared.  Advised thresholds for those flags are:&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# AI sire: If &amp;gt;80% of genotyped offspring fail if &amp;gt;10 offspring are genotyped.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stock/herd bull: If &amp;gt;80% of genotyped offspring fail if &amp;gt;5 offspring are genotyped.&lt;br /&gt;
# Dam: If 100% of genotyped offspring fail if 2 offspring are genotyped, else if &amp;gt;5 offspring are genotyped then use &amp;gt;80%.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;li&amp;gt; Duplicate genotype.   The only case where two or more animals should share the exact same genotype is if they are identical twins or clones.  Checking to see if &amp;gt;1 animal has the same genotypes is a useful quality control check.  It is recommended using your parentage SNP set for initial screening and for any pair that have &amp;gt;99% identical genotypes and then using all available SNP to see if &amp;gt;99% of the genotypes match.&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For standardization purposes with respect to the nomenclature of genes or loci, a web site is available at: https://www.genenames.org/about/guidelines#genenames and markers at: [https://hgvs-nomenclature.org/versions/21.0/ &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.HGVS.org/varnomen&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ICAR services related to DNA technology ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR offers three services that are related to the use of DNA all of which are linked to parentage analysis in one form or another, as shown in Figure 1. ICAR DNA services., and describing them in more detail in the other sections.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ICAR DNA service.png|thumb|Figure 1. ICAR DNA  services.|center|415x415px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ICAR certification of laboratories providing DNA genotyping services ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
Considering the need for high quality standards in all uses of molecular data, ICAR has for several years offered a certification service based on defined minimum requirements for laboratories providing DNA genotyping services. The basic requirements of this certification include proof of the minimum internal management quality assurance standards and a Rank 1 result from participation in the most recent biennial international ring test developed and offered by the International Society for Animal Genetics (ISAG). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, such laboratories generally have been analyzing the resulting genotypes to carry out microsatellite- and/or SNP-based parentage analysis services including either parentage verification or animal identification confirmation. This ICAR certification service has previously been used for recognizing the genotyping laboratory as a certified organization to provide parentage analysis functions without specifically testing the technical accuracy of doing so. Effective 2021, the SNP-based parentage analysis certification service for DNA Data Interpretation Centres has replaced the previous laboratory certification for SNP-based parentage verification. In the future, a similar technical process for the certification of microsatellite-based parentage analysis may be introduced by ICAR but until such time, the existing process for the certification of genotyping laboratories will remain in effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following guidelines for certification are provided for microsatellite- and SNP-based genotyping in cattle. Minimum requirements for additional species and other DNA tests may be defined in the future. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Scope ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are for the certification , by ICAR, of genotyping laboratories that analyze biological samples from cattle using microsatellite- and or SNP-based genotyping, which may be subsequently used for various levels of parentage analysis, genotype imputation, estimation of genomic breeding values and other activities related to genomic selection strategies. This certification process also includes parentage verification based on microsatellites since ICAR has not established this service as part of the portfolio of possible certifications for DNA data interpretation centres. For genotyping laboratories that would like to receive ICAR certification for SNP-based parentage verification, they must now apply separately to ICAR for its parallel service of parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres, as described in section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== ICAR Guidelines for certification of genotyping laboratories ===&lt;br /&gt;
The certification process comprises the following steps:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Application for certification &lt;br /&gt;
* Payment of relevant fee&lt;br /&gt;
* Review of application&lt;br /&gt;
* Granting of certification &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Application for certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Laboratories requesting certification only for microsatellite- based genotyping and parentage verification must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form as provided in [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-II-Application-Form-for-STR-Accreditation.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 2. Application form for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle&#039;&#039;.] Laboratories seeking ICAR certification involving SNP-based genotyping must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form as provided in [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-V-Application-Form-for-SNP-Accreditation.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 3. Application form for SNP-based genotyping required for parentage analysis in cattle.&#039;&#039;] Laboratories that have previously received ICAR certification for either service may re-apply prior to the expiry of any such certification using a shortened renewal form available on the ICAR web site. All application forms must be emailed to the ICAR secretariat at dna@icar.org and be filled out accurately and completely including the necessary documentation as required.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Payment of relevant fee ====  &lt;br /&gt;
Along with the completed application form, the applicant must also provide full payment of the relevant fee as established by ICAR and given in [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/guidelines-for-str-and-snp-based-parentage-testing-in-cattle/ &#039;&#039;Appendix 4. ICAR DNA Laboratory Certification Service fees&#039;&#039;.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Review of application ====&lt;br /&gt;
The application will be evaluated by a committee of experts appointed by ICAR that will either:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Approve the application&lt;br /&gt;
* Request additional information, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Reject the application &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the case of rejection, the laboratory may make a new submission as part of the ICAR annual call for applications for any subsequent year after the failed application. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Granting of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Certification will be given for a period of two calendar years with an expiry date of December 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; of the second year after receiving ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Renewal of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
In advance of the expiry date of any existing ICAR certification , normally during the same year of the December 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; expiry date, a laboratory can apply for renewal of their certification by submitting an application as described in section 3.3.1 above and successfully completing the other steps outlined in this section 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Laboratory certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Effective the 2022 ICAR call for certification of genotyping laboratories, ISO17025 certification , or an equivalent certification for ensuring quality internal management systems, is a mandatory requirement for SNP-based certification .  In addition, effective the 2022 call for certification of genotyping laboratories for microsatellite (STR)-based certification, ISO9001 certification will no longer be acceptable and only ISO17025, or an equivalent certification, will be an acceptable level of certification to ensure quality internal management systems. During the year of application for ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services, the applicant must provide proof of ISO17025 certification with an expiry date of October 31&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; of the following calendar year, or later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Participation and performance in ring test ====&lt;br /&gt;
On a biennial basis, initiated during even years (i.e.: 2022, 20246, etc…) and discussed at its biennial conference in odd years (2023, 2025, etc.), ISAG conducts an international ring (comparison) test of laboratories for both microsatellite- and SNP-based genotyping. The participation in ISAG and performance within these ring tests must be disclosed, and certificates provided to ICAR, when available. Applicants must also sign a release allowing ISAG to directly disclose their ring test results to ICAR. Participation in the most recent ISAG ring test is a minimum requirement to qualify for ICAR certification. For the ISAG microsatellite ring test, lab genotyping performance for the official set of 12 ISAG microsatellites must be disclosed. The committee of experts will decide performance thresholds for each ring test with due consideration for the structure of the ring test and the average performance of laboratories in the ring test that year. Only those laboratories achieving Rank 1 status in the most recent biennial ISAG ring test shall automatically qualify to receive ICAR certification as a genotyping laboratory. Laboratories achieving a Rank 2 status in the most recent ISAG ring test may qualify to receive ICAR certification, at the discretion of the committee of experts, but must provide evidence of Rank 1 status for previous ISAG ring tests as well as documentation outlining the cause of the Rank 2 result and any associated actions to mitigate similar outcomes in future ISAG ring tests. Laboratories achieving a status lower than Rank 2 in the most recent ISAG ring test do not qualify for ICAR certification as a laboratory providing DNA genotyping services.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Microsatellite markers ====&lt;br /&gt;
The names of all microsatellites typed on all animals (marker set I) and of the additional ones assayed in the case of unresolved parentage (marker set II) must be declared, as well as the number of animals typed in at least the last two years. The minimum requirement for international exchange is the complete set of 12 official ISAG microsatellite markers. To ensure sufficient experience within the lab, analysis of 500 animals per year is set as minimum requirement for microsatellite parentage verification certification. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/03-Annex-III-ISAG-microsatellites.pdf Appendix 5. ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle]&#039;&#039; contains the list of microsatellite markers recommended by ISAG and the method for calculating 1 parent and 2 parent exclusion probabilities. The rules for microsatellite-based parentage verification in cattle are described in &#039;&#039;[https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01-Annex-I-guidelines-microsats-STRs.pdf Appendix 6. Rules for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle]&#039;&#039;. Exclusion probability (PE; 2 parents and 1 parent) of each marker and of the complete marker sets must be calculated and provided in the application. The type of population and number of animals (minimum 150) used for computations are to be described. ICAR recommends using Holstein as a reference group when possible. The ICAR committee of experts will evaluate that an appropriate PE is reached for certification, on the basis of the population analyzed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== SNP markers ====&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR certification of SNP-based parentage verification is based on the full set of 200 SNP previously recommended by ISAG. The name of all SNP genotyped on all animals (marker set I, including the 100 “Core” SNP) and of the additional markers assayed in the case of unresolved parentage (marker set II, including the 100 “Additional” SNP) must be declared, as well as the number of animals SNP genotyped in at least the last two years. ICAR recommends using the full set of 200 SNP for parentage verification of all animals genotyped (&#039;&#039;see [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf Appendix 7. List of approved SNP for parentage verification in]&#039;&#039; [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf cattle]). ICAR may, however, based on scientific evidence, identify specific problematic SNP that must be excluded for parentage analysis, as described in the ICAR documentation related to the certification of DNA data interpretation centres outlined in section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Marker nomenclature ====&lt;br /&gt;
Nomenclature of markers must be described. ISAG nomenclature is required for the official ISAG 12 marker set as well as for the ISAG SNP marker set.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Certification of organisations performing SNP-based parentage analysis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
With the advent of SNP genotyping, the function of DNA genotyping as a laboratory activity can be separated from the functions of performing parentage verification and parentage discovery. Consequently, ICAR has established a separate certification for applying the results of SNP-based genotyping, which may be undertaken by laboratories, breed association societies, genetic evaluation centres and any other organization involved in parentage verification and/or the data processing of SNP genotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parentage verification and discovery are concerned with using the results that are delivered by the laboratories from DNA genotyping and require SNP genotypes for the animal itself, its recorded parents and other possible parents in the case of parentage discovery. Organizations undertaking this function may be service providers between laboratories that ICAR has certified for microsatellite- and or SNP-based DNA genotyping and end users that may include breed societies, breeding companies, breeders and commercial farmers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Service providers could use different laboratories for different breeds and/or species. Considering the importance of animal identification and parentage verification in animal recording, ICAR has decided to define the minimum requirements for using the results of DNA genotyping, and other information, for the purpose of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Parentage verification&lt;br /&gt;
# Parentage discovery, and&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal identification confirmation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a basis for the certification of processes used by organizations that use SNP genotypes in cattle. Minimum requirements for additional species and other DNA analyses may be defined in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Scope ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are for the certification, by ICAR, of organizations that use the results of SNP-based tests for parentage analysis in cattle, which includes parentage verification, parentage discovery, and/or animal identification confirmation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Certification of organizations performing parentage analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR certification process comprises the following steps:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Application for certification&lt;br /&gt;
* Payment of relevant fee&lt;br /&gt;
* Review of application&lt;br /&gt;
* Technical processing of test data files&lt;br /&gt;
* Granting of certification&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Application ====&lt;br /&gt;
Organizations carrying out SNP-based parentage analysis and requesting ICAR certification as a DNA Data Interpretation Centre must apply by downloading and completing the appropriate form included below as [https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/6-Annex-V-Application-Form-forICAR-Accreditation-of-DNA-Centres.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 8. Application form for organizations seeking ICAR parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres&#039;&#039;.] This form must be filled out accurately and completely, providing necessary documentation as required, and submitted to ICAR with payment of the appropriate fee. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Review of application ====&lt;br /&gt;
The application will first be reviewed internally by ICAR for its completeness and additional details may be requested as needed. ICAR administration will also confirm receipt of the applicable fee. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Technical processing of test files ====&lt;br /&gt;
The applicant organization will receive a set of data files from ICAR through the Interbull Centre, for processing using its existing procedures for carrying out the level of parentage analysis for which the applicant is seeking ICAR certification as a DNA Data Interpretation Centre. A detailed description of this step is described in [https://www.icar.org/index.php/certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/two-new-dna-based-services/dna-data-interpretation-centres/ &#039;&#039;Appendix 9. Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres.&#039;&#039;] In order for the applicant to be successful in obtaining the requested ICAR certification, it&#039;s procedures for conducting parentage analysis must exactly follow [https://www.icar.org/Documents/GenoEx/ICAR%20Guidelines%20for%20Parentage%20Verification%20and%20Parentage%20Discovery%20based%20on%20SNP.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 10. ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes&#039;&#039;.] The list of SNP to be used for either parentage verification (N=200) or parentage discovery (N=554) are available in [https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-11-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification-or-discovery.pdf &#039;&#039;Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery&#039;&#039;.] Once the applicant has completed its internal parentage analysis procedures based on the certification test files it received, it must send a data file of results back to the Interbull Centre. A maximum time period for 90 calendar days will be allowed for the applicant to submit acceptable files of results back to the Interbull Centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Granting of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
Once the Interbull Centre receives the file of parentage analysis results from the applicant, it will complete the technical review and determine if the applicant has successfully completed the certification or not. The Interbull Centre shall inform ICAR of the results and ICAR shall issue a formal notification to the applicant. In the event the applicant was not successful in receiving ICAR certification, the applicant may initiate a new request for certification by completing and submitting the appropriate forms and providing payment of the applicable fee, as outlined above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Renewal of certification ====&lt;br /&gt;
In advance of the expiry date of any existing ICAR certification, which coincides with the two-year anniversary date of the current certification, an applicant can apply for renewal of their certification by submitting an application as described in section 4.3.1 above and successfully completing the other required steps outlined in this section 4.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Genotype Exchange Service – GenoEx-PSE ==&lt;br /&gt;
Effective 2018, ICAR has made available a genotype exchange service for parentage analysis, GenoEx-PSE, offered through the Interbull Centre. The main goal of this service is to facilitate the international exchange of SNP genotypes such that approved service users can carry out parentage analysis services at a national level in an efficient manner. The GenoEx-PSE database system and user interface has been developed to allow for the exchange of SNP genotypes for either parentage verification or parentage discovery based on the list of SNP provided in &#039;&#039;Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for an organization to qualify as a service user for GenoEx-PSE, it must first receive ICAR certification as a DNA data interpretation centre.  The level of such ICAR certification (i.e.: for SNP-based parentage verification alone or for both SNP-based parentage verification and discovery) shall determine the highest level of SNP that may be exchanged via the GenoEx-PSE service. For details associated with this ICAR service, refer to the GenoEx-PSE web site at [https://genoex.org/ www.GenoEx.org.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parentage Verification Using Full SNP Comparisons&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix list ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 1. Link to SNP markers recommended by ISAG for parentage verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
[https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-1-Cattle-SNP-ISAG-core-additional-panel-2013.xlsx https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-1-Cattle-SNP-ISAG-core-additional-panel-2013.xlsx]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 2. Application form for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-II-Application-Form-for-STR-Accreditation.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the Form for ICAR laboratory certification for STR Microsatellite-based Parentage Testing in Cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 3. Application form for SNP-based genotyping required for parentage analysis in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Annex-V-Application-Form-for-SNP-Accreditation.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the Form for ICAR laboratory certification for SNP-based genotyping required for Parentage Analysis in Cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 4.  ICAR DNA laboratory certification service fees ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/index.php/certifications/dna-certifications/guidelines-for-str-and-snp-based-parentage-testing-in-cattle/ here] on the ICAR website for DNA testing certification services fees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 5. ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/03-Annex-III-ISAG-microsatellites.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the list of ISAG recommended microsatellites for parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 6. Rules for microsatellite-based parentage testing in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01-Annex-I-guidelines-microsats-STRs.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the rules for microsatellite-based parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 7. List of approved SNP for parentage verification in cattle ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App7-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the ICAR approved list of 200 SNP for parentage verification in cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 8. Application form for organizations seeking ICAR parentage analysis certification for DNA data interpretation centres ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/6-Annex-V-Application-Form-forICAR-Accreditation-of-DNA-Centres.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the application form for organizations seeking ICAR certification status as a DNA data interpretation centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 9. Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/index.php/certifications/dna-certifications/certification-and-accreditation-of-dna-genetic-laboratories/two-new-dna-based-services/dna-data-interpretation-centres/ here] on the ICAR website for the Applicant&#039;s Guide for ICAR Parentage Analysis certification for DNA Data Interpretation Centres.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 10. ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Documents/GenoEx/ICAR%20Guidelines%20for%20Parentage%20Verification%20and%20Parentage%20Discovery%20based%20on%20SNP.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the ICAR Guidelines for Parentage Verification and Parentage Discovery Based on SNP Genotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Appendix 11. List of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please refer [https://old.icar.org/Guidelines/04-DNA-Technology-App-11-SNP-list-for-parentage-verification-or-discovery.pdf here] on the ICAR website for the list of SNP to be used for either parentage verification or parentage discovery.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Guidelines&amp;diff=5027</id>
		<title>Guidelines</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Guidelines&amp;diff=5027"/>
		<updated>2026-05-19T15:27:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Sections */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;=Forward=&lt;br /&gt;
Welcome to [https://www.icar.org/ ICAR&#039;s] Guidelines Wiki. The content on this wiki is derived from the Guidelines, originally produced as PDF.  The ICAR Guidelines attempt to provide the world-wide farm livestock recording sector with detailed standards and guidelines representing the state-of-the-art for the full range of activities involved in the identification, performance recording and evaluation of farm livestock.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Sections=&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;column-count:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 0 - Preamble|Section 0 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Preamble&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 01 – General Rules|Section 01 – &#039;&#039;&#039;General Rules&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Cattle Milk Recording&#039;&#039;&#039;]] &lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 03 – Beef Cattle Recording|Section 03 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Beef Cattle Recording&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 04 – DNA Technology|Section 04 – &#039;&#039;&#039;DNA Technology&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Conformation Recording&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06 – &#039;&#039;&#039;AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits|Section 07 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Bovine Functional Traits&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 08 – Certificate of Quality|Section 08 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Certificate of Quality&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 09 – Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation|Section 09 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 10 – Identification Device Certification|Section 10 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Identification Device Certification&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 11 – Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices|Section 11 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Testing, Approval and Checking of Measuring, Recording and Sampling Devices&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 12: Evaluation of milk analysers for ICAR Certification|Section 12 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluation of milk analysers for ICAR Certification&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 14 – Alpaca and Goat Identification and Fibre|Section 14 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Alpaca and Goat Identification and Fibre&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 15 – Data Exchange|Section 15 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Data Exchange&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 16 – Dairy Sheep and Goats|Section 16 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Dairy Sheep and Goats&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 17 – Buffalo Milk Recording|Section 17 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Buffalo Milk Recording&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 18 – Breed Associations|Section 18 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed Associations&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 19 – Recording Feed Intake for Genetic Evaluation|Section 19 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Recording Feed Intake for Genetic Evaluation&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 20 – Methane Emission for Genetic Evaluation|Section 20 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Methane Emission for Genetic Evaluation&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 21 – Meat, reproduction and maternal trait in sheep and goats|Section 21 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Meat, reproduction and maternal trait in sheep and goats&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 22 – Sustainability recording traits|Section 22 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Sustainability recording traits&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Section 23 – Wool Sheep Recording|Section 23 – &#039;&#039;&#039;Wool Sheep Recording&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Section 24 - [[Section 24: Recording resilience in sheep and goats|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recording resilience in sheep and goats&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Section 25 - [[Section 25 – International Beef Evaluation and Validation|&#039;&#039;&#039;International Beef Evaluation and Validation&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:[[Glossary]]&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;column-count:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_25_%E2%80%93_International_Beef_Evaluation_and_Validation&amp;diff=5026</id>
		<title>Section 25 – International Beef Evaluation and Validation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_25_%E2%80%93_International_Beef_Evaluation_and_Validation&amp;diff=5026"/>
		<updated>2026-05-19T15:24:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: Created page with &amp;quot;= International Beef Evaluation and Validation =  == Introduction == Advances in reproductive technologies—such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer—together with reduced costs for storing frozen genetic material, have transformed bovine genetic trade from a largely local activity into a global market. As genetic material increasingly moves across borders, breeders need reliable ways to compare animals from different countries and make well-informed selecti...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;= International Beef Evaluation and Validation =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Advances in reproductive technologies—such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer—together with reduced costs for storing frozen genetic material, have transformed bovine genetic trade from a largely local activity into a global market. As genetic material increasingly moves across borders, breeders need reliable ways to compare animals from different countries and make well-informed selection decisions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
International genetic evaluations were developed to address this need, first in dairy cattle and later in beef cattle. However, beef cattle present specific challenges: production systems vary widely within and between countries, trait definitions are not always aligned, and evaluation methods differ. These challenges are further compounded by the potential for genotype-by-environment interactions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the 2000s, studies across European countries highlighted the need for international beef evaluations that could account for these differences. In response, the ICAR Interbeef Working Group was established in 2006 to promote collaboration and harmonise recording and evaluation practices. The first international evaluations were conducted by the Interbull Centre in 2015, and the service has continued to evolve since then. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, Interbeef evaluations combine performance data from multiple countries using multi-trait, multi-country models that account for differences in national evaluation systems. This approach allows estimation of breeding values that are comparable across populations while remaining meaningful within each country. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring that these models produce unbiased and reliable results requires robust validation. While well-established validation methods exist for dairy cattle evaluations, they cannot be directly applied to beef cattle. Beef evaluations typically involve smaller and less connected contemporary groups, fewer progeny per sire, and fewer highly proven sires, partly due to the lower use of artificial insemination. These factors make it necessary to develop or adapt validation methods specifically for beef cattle data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The guidelines that follow provide a practical framework for international evaluations and validations of beef cattle. They outline key principles and recommended practices that can be applied across different systems and initiatives, supporting the continued improvement of global genetic evaluation services. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Applying Interbull Method II to Beef Evaluations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background ===&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic evaluations estimate the breeding value of the animals based on data from the individual, its relatives, or both. The accuracy of the estimates depends on the quality of the records and the models used for the evaluation. A major concern is the bias of the estimate, or, in other words, the difference between the animals&#039; expected and actual breeding values. Biased breeding values can lead to incorrect selection decisions and inaccurate estimates of genetic trends, so detecting and removing bias are therefore crucial.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The methods used to detect and measure the bias in the genetic models are known as validation methods. Validation is a key point in international evaluations, where different data and models are received from several countries. Countries utilizing models or data producing biased results can, over time, compromise the accuracy of international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the 1990s, Interbull has developed and updated validation methods for dairy evaluations. No specific validation methods were yet available for the beef international evaluations due, among other things, to the relatively young age of the service, as the first official evaluations was launched in 2015. Recognizing the need for validation and the differences between the dairy and beef industries, adapting or developing specific validation methods for beef evaluations is a crucial step. To this end, the Interbeef Working Group and Interbull Centre have worked together to identify suitable methods for implementing a model validation for beef genetic evaluations. Their work led to adapting the Interbull validation Method II to beef evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Interbull Method II should be applied at the national level before submitting data to the international evaluation. The results will be used to provide feedback to the National Genetics Evaluation Centres on the robustness of their genetic models and decide whether the data is suitable for inclusion in an international evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Interbull Method II ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Interbull Method II was initially developed for dairy cattle evaluation, focusing on the variation in daughter yield deviation (DYD) within individual bulls. The method can also examine the progeny yield deviation (PD) variation in beef cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Objectives ==&lt;br /&gt;
To implement a standardized validation method (lnterbull Method 11) at the national level for beef genetic evaluations, ensuring that submitted data is unbiased and suitable for inclusion in international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Validate data from countries participating in the Interbeef evaluation to determine their eligibility for inclusion. This process aims to improve the accuracy of the international evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Establish standardized validation methods for models at the country level, allowing countries to demonstrate that their evaluations are unbiased and meet international standards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Responsibility ===&lt;br /&gt;
Countries calculating PD must use this method prior to submitting data to the Interbeef genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Motivation ==&lt;br /&gt;
This approach assumes that PD is independent from environmental influences (Boichard et al., 1995), which allows for assessing whether yearly effects impact PD. The method investigates the non-genetic trend over the years, with deviations from zero indicating biases in the genetic trend estimation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The PD is calculated based on the most recent national genetic evaluation incorporated into international evaluations within a year. PD is determined for each observation by considering the breeding value of the dam and other influencing factors but excluding the progeny&#039;s breeding value, as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Formula 1 Section 25.jpg|center|frameless|243x243px]]&lt;br /&gt;
where:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Formula 2 Section 25.jpg|left|frameless|399x399px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The target bulls to include in the analysis should be A. I. bulls that following these criterias:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Have offspring in at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three consecutive years.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* Have at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three progeny per year.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* The progeny is present in at least &#039;&#039;&#039;three herds per year.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Action ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following model is used to analyse progeny individual deviations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PD&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* PD&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;jj&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;  represents the progeny yield deviation for sire &#039;&#039;S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&#039;&#039; in year &#039;&#039;j.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* S&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the sire &#039;&#039;i&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* b&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;j&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the regression coefficient for year &#039;&#039;j.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* e&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ii&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is the residual term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reference year (&#039;&#039;j&#039;&#039; = 0) corresponds to when the bull&#039;s first progenies are born. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Criterion ===&lt;br /&gt;
The value of &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; indicates the yearly trend for bulls. If &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; differs from zero, it suggests the presence of an environmental trend not accounted for in the model. To establish a straightforward pass/fail criterion, the absolute value of &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; (│&#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039;│) should not exceed 1% of the trait&#039;s genetic standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Remarks ===&lt;br /&gt;
If the &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; value is positive &#039;&#039;(b&#039;&#039; &amp;gt; 0), this may indicate that the genetic trend is being overestimated. Conversely, a negative &#039;&#039;b&#039;&#039; value &#039;&#039;(b&#039;&#039; &amp;lt; 0) suggests that the trend is underestimated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Outcome ===&lt;br /&gt;
The validation process will follow specific criteria, such as population size and genetic diversity, ultimately resulting in a &amp;quot;yes/no&amp;quot; outcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Limitations ===&lt;br /&gt;
The estimation of PDs must be based on models that do not consider maternal effects. The test must be applied to at least 150 bulls that meet the requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boichard, D., B. Bonaiti, A. Barbat, and S. Mattalia. 1995. Three Methods to Validate the Estimation of Genetic Trend for Dairy Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 78:431-437. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76652-8&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Formula_2_Section_25.jpg&amp;diff=5025</id>
		<title>File:Formula 2 Section 25.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Formula_2_Section_25.jpg&amp;diff=5025"/>
		<updated>2026-05-19T15:11:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Formula 2 Section 25&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Formula_1_Section_25.jpg&amp;diff=5024</id>
		<title>File:Formula 1 Section 25.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Formula_1_Section_25.jpg&amp;diff=5024"/>
		<updated>2026-05-19T15:09:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Formula 1 Section 25&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5023</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5023"/>
		<updated>2026-05-19T11:54:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Recommendations for Use of BCS Scales */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website here - https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-claw-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file here - https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A  healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It  is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production  efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis  causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of  infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows  primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank  SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all  infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all  infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly  eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae  is fully  eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the  environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical  mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not  necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10%  of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus  dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus  faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all  infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella  pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the  number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than  200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of  udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for  on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and  somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd  management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per  individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the  presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain  threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer  from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform  a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct  overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include  correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such  as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires  different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore,  information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in  operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence,  bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support  at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages,  but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If  available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean  of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might  be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering  milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different  groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an  average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes  which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative  management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk  somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC  on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count  (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price  payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high  levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many  cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused.  When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental  infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete  with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of  contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are  usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe  illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not  invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually  suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good  management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039;              In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039;  Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039;             Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?           &#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of  recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of  inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June,  2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number  cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted  and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June  2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary  treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red,  first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical  mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the  cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et  al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein  Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number  of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average  0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al.,  2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer  and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the  wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly  painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as  digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly  extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with  odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole  and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be  caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization  (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2        Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9;  HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is  normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking.  The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and  is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of  locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often  bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of  movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step  at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is  obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that  limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore  limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow  additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight  on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted.  Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion  with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the  ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement –  Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Observe the foot position and  placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three  positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Directly behind the cow such  that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Left of the cow for a  side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Record the presence of EDGE,  SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Position yourself behind the  cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Ask the producer to shift the  cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       First walk from the right to  the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If the cow does not respond  to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on  the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move  left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If this still does not work,  poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3.       Pay attention to how the cow  shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe if the UNEVEN  indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight  on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe the foot position and  placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after  movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4.       Record presence of behavioural  indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding,  Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège,  Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3:  Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1]]Figure 1. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https:// doi .org/ 10 .2527/ jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended for stakeholders using sensor-derived data from dairy cows. They provide recommendations for recording, processing, integrating, and standardising data across sensors, and guidance on deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating those functional traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, there is limited research highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and rapidly recover to its baseline behavioural pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other variables such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, feeding, drinking). It should be explicitly stated that sensor-derived phenotypic traits are proxy measurements, inferred from behavioural patterns to reflect underlying biological states and are not equivalent to veterinary diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information is needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in [https://github.com/adewg/ICAR. https://github.com/adewg/ICAR.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique  Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to [https://wiki.interbull.org/public/beef_guidelines#A2.1_Format ICAR Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals where this cannot be avoided. In such cases, this should be recorded for subsequent verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Where alternative coding systems are used, mappings to ICAR/Interbull codes should be documented. Refer to [https://interbull.org/ib/icarbreedcodes breed codes]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farm Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modelling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor was used on a different animal, it is important that the information provided can be linked to the correct animal. Although considered a minimal risk, duplicate animal IDs have been observed in dairy herds and could lead to inaccurate recording of phenotypic traits. Therefore, this is a recommended step to enhance data collection accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to customers.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of  session with complete data collection) should also be provided. This applies to any other animal based or sensor-derived information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific projects..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The above specified data requirements and arrangements specified for rumination also apply to other behavioral traits measured in minutes (e.g. eating and lying), including associated metadata and aggregation rules such as the total number of measurements per days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as oestrus detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behaviour assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behaviour, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected sensor information such as eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alerts (e.g., oestrus detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using an official external animal identifier (e.g. a national recording scheme or breed registry), or whether a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioural metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioural values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The primary trait evaluated is Rumination Time (min/day). In addition to absolute levels, metrics such as mean, standard deviation, or changes within defined time windows may also be considered. Further sets of variables are currently studied as indicators of overall resilience. This framework considers variability in longitudinal traits, such as rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. These longitudinal patterns should be evaluated within lactations and across successive lactations. Examples of studies that define resilience using longitudinal behavioural data include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlours, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to or in an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to or placed in the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “calibration period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to or placed in the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); days in milk (DIM); and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Linking rumination data to functional traits for genetic evaluation remains challenging, as genetic correlations are not yet well established and the evidence base is still limited. Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations presents challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensor systems, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensor system are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition. Data governance and legal compliance: multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal and regulatory frameworks, including appropriate provisions for privacy and confidentiality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance).&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time.&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background;  and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (h[https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554 ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Open questions to follow up:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If cows are culled before a minimum observation period, how should their rumination records be treated for analytical purposes? How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations).&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets.&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance).&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= ICAR/IDF Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS) =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is a crucial method for assessing the health and metabolic status of dairy cows by estimating their body fat reserves. Regular monitoring of BCS is essential for developing strategies for maintaining optimal body condition, health, welfare and productivity in dairy herds. This document provides standardized guidelines for BCS recording and use, emphasizing its applications in herd management, genetic evaluation, and welfare assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Defining Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is an indicator of the proportion of body fat in cows, providing a reliable measure of body reserves. It is assessed through visual or tactile appraisal and is rationalized into various numerical systems using different scales. The primary purpose of body conditions scoring is to evaluate the energy reserves in dairy cows, which are critical for their health, fertility, longevity, and productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS as an Indicator of Fat Reserve ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before the 1970s, there were no simple measures of a cow’s energy reserves or body condition. Body weight alone is not a reliable measure due to variations in frame size and gut fill. BCS provides a more accurate assessment by focusing on body fat reserves, which are crucial for buffering cows against negative energy balance during early lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS Scoring Systems and Their Diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
A variety of BCS scales inside different systems are used globally, each tailored to specific purposes such as conformation scoring for genetic evaluation, herd management, welfare assessment, and others. The variability in scales can cause confusion when comparing targets and results across farms and breeding programs. Moreover, the precision of BCS scales must be considered as defined by the number of used classes and not the range of the scales. Commonly scales used are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-3 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used for welfare assessment (Welfare Quality®: Assessment protocol for cattle (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;0-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the UK and Ireland, developed by     Jefferies (1961) for ewes and adapted for beef cattle by Lowman et al. (1973).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-10 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in New Zealand, developed by Roche et al. (2004).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-8 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in Australia, developed by Earle et al, (1977).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the US and European countries, with variants proposed by Wildman et al. (1982) and Ferguson et al. (1994). The Ferguson et     al. (1994) scale with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-9 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used of conformation  scoring programs to determine genetic differences among animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different countries use various BCS scales and associated systems based on local practices and requirements for specific purposes. Table 1 gives details on some of the most commonly used systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Details on some of the most commonly used systems&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Method&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United Kingdom&lt;br /&gt;
|0 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (11)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Mulvany (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|New Zealand&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (19)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Roche et al. (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 8&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (15)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Earle et al. (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Wildman et al. (1982)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Ferguson et al. (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Multiple&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 9&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (9)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|ICAR confirmation classification system]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Using Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Manual Assessment ===&lt;br /&gt;
Manual assessment of BCS involves palpating key body regions (e.g., ribs, spine, hips) to estimate fat and muscle reserves. This method remains reliable but is subject to assessor variability. Consistency in training assessors is crucial to reduce this variability. As differences between scorers, despite efforts to harmonize, can be expected, coded identification of assessors needs to be retained. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example for BCS Based on a 1-5 Scoring Scale ===&lt;br /&gt;
Detailed information describing the 1-5 scoring scale with 0.25 intervals (17 classes) were given by Edmonson et al. (1989). In Figure 1, the major elements for assigning the 5 major steps are given as an example.[[File:Section 7 Figure 8.1.jpg|center|frame|Figure 1: Example of an 1-5 BCS scale chart (Modified from Edmonson et al., 1989).]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Digital Tools ===&lt;br /&gt;
Three main levels of digital tools exist:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Use of digital tools to facilitate on-farm recording and documentation&#039;&#039;&#039;: Facilitates the use of standards when scoring the documentation and the recording of still visual assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-assisted assessments&#039;&#039;&#039;: Human assessors still doing the scoring but using devices to support manual assessment, replacing the     human eye.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-driven assessments with vision-based sensor systems&#039;&#039;&#039;: Purely automatic sensor-based assessments that also allow daily on-farm BCS assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For tools of types 2 and 3, reference populations need to include sufficiently extreme animals in order to develop prediction models covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Automated BCS recordings using digital technologies, such as 3D imaging systems (i.e., tools of type 3) offer a more objective and consistent assessment of BCS, typically multiple daily scoring when cows exit the milking system. The frequent and consistent measurements enable detailed analysis for each cow within and across lactations including short term individual and group level management. While minimizing human error and variation, the performance of automated BCS sensor system depends, among other factors, on the training and validation of the models. Human observers should be well trained showing high inter-observer and intra-observer agreement to generate a suitable reference standard. However, technological limitations due to on-farm conditions still make it challenging to achieve full accuracy, particularly when compared with manual palpation. Recent advances in AI models will be crucial to improve even more accuracy (e.g., detection of outliers).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Use of BCS Scales ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conversion Between BCS Scales ===&lt;br /&gt;
Conversions between different scales should be used with caution. Simple mathematical conversions may not be accurate due to non-linear use of scales. Conversion methods ranked from least to most reliable ones are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Mathematical Conversion of Scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop purely mathematical conversions, to be used with extreme caution.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Distribution-Based Conversion&#039;&#039;&#039;: Map attributed scores to a common scale using z-scores (Snell, 1965) based on the comparison of uses of scales, can be used under the assumption that the underlying populations have similar distributions of body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Aligning Calibrated BCS scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: An objective way to calibrate any BCS scale is to quantify the change in body weight (kg) associated with a one-unit change in BCS. If such     relationships are available for different BCS scales, a direct and biologically meaningful conversion can be established between them.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Simultaneous Scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop conversion equations based on simultaneous scoring of large groups of cows, covering the full range of variability in body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversion methods should always work sufficiently also for extreme animals covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Body condition scoring plays a vital role in managing dairy herds, allowing farmers to adjust feeding strategies and monitor metabolic health. Frequent BCS assessments help identify cows that are either losing or gaining condition too quickly, which may indicate underlying health or nutritional issues. Table 2 outlines various BCS scales proposed for specific purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Purpose of example BCS Scale.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Purpose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;BCS Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Frequency&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feeding advice&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Frequent and longitudinal&lt;br /&gt;
|Identification of cows with BCS change, indicating potential health problems and allowing optimization of feeding&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of metabolic disturbance&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Before and after calving and at least 2 times before peak of lactation (~50 DIM)&lt;br /&gt;
|Enables detection of BCS changes within cow during different stages of lactation in the herd &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Welfare assessment&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (3)&lt;br /&gt;
|Detect general status of cows (thin-normal-fat)&lt;br /&gt;
|Focus on identification of proportion of cows with unacceptable BCS that is indicator of and risk factor for diseases and disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 outlines the recommended frequency for BCS assessment based on the key stages in the cow’s lactation cycle. For metabolic risk assessment and nutritional management, the within cow differences in BCS between measurement moments should be calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Recommendations for the frequency of BCS assessments.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Moment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pre-calving&lt;br /&gt;
|Approximately 3 weeks before calving to ensure optimal condition&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Early lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Close monitoring at calving/fresh cow&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Peak lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of nadir in BCS&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dry off period&lt;br /&gt;
|Assess 7-8 weeks before calving to adjust feeding as needed&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An optimal recording scheme could include dry off, pre-calving, calving, early lactation/pre-service, 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; service, pregnancy check, and late lactation. A representative random stratified sample of cows representing all lactations should be measured at key stages to ensure effective assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;For further details, please refer to Gengler et al. (2024) and to the workshop “Recording and evaluation of BCS and its relationship with health and welfare” held in Montreal on the 31st of May 2022, organised by the “ICAR–IDF Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by a “Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines” which was composed out of members of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group and the IDF Standing Committee of Health and Welfare as well as members of other ICAR Groups and international experts. We would like to thank also the participants can contributors to the ICAR-IDF webinar in Montreal 2022 for their valuable contribution. The c&#039;&#039;orresponding author and leader of elaboration of these guidelines is&#039;&#039; [mailto:Nicolas.gengler@uliege.be nicolas.gengler@uliege.be].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Citation of guideline&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gengler, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1,&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Gyawali, A.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Brito, L.F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Bewley, J. M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Cole, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, de Jong, G.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Fourdraine, R.H.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Friggens, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Haskell, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Heringstad, B.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Kelton, D.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Pryce, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Sievert, S.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stock, K. F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stephen, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Vasseur, E.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Klaas, I.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner, C&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;.18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;. 2025. ICAR Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Aashish Gywali, LMU, Germany&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;5CDCB, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;CRV, Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;INRAE, France&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;University of Guelph, Canada&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Agriculture Victoria Research, Australia&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;National DHIA &amp;amp; DHIA Services, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Dairy New Zealand, New Zealand&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5022</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5022"/>
		<updated>2026-05-19T11:46:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website here - https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-claw-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file here - https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A  healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It  is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production  efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis  causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of  infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows  primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank  SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all  infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all  infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly  eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae  is fully  eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the  environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical  mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not  necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10%  of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus  dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus  faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all  infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella  pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the  number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than  200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of  udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for  on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and  somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd  management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per  individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the  presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain  threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer  from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform  a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct  overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include  correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such  as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires  different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore,  information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in  operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence,  bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support  at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages,  but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If  available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean  of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might  be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering  milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different  groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an  average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes  which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative  management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk  somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC  on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count  (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price  payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high  levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many  cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused.  When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental  infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete  with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of  contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are  usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe  illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not  invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually  suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good  management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039;              In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039;  Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039;             Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?           &#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of  recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of  inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June,  2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number  cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted  and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June  2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary  treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red,  first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical  mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the  cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et  al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein  Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number  of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average  0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al.,  2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer  and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the  wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly  painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as  digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly  extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with  odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole  and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be  caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization  (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2        Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9;  HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is  normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking.  The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and  is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of  locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often  bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of  movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step  at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is  obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that  limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore  limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow  additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight  on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted.  Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion  with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the  ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement –  Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Observe the foot position and  placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three  positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Directly behind the cow such  that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Left of the cow for a  side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Record the presence of EDGE,  SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Position yourself behind the  cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Ask the producer to shift the  cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       First walk from the right to  the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If the cow does not respond  to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on  the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move  left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If this still does not work,  poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3.       Pay attention to how the cow  shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe if the UNEVEN  indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight  on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe the foot position and  placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after  movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4.       Record presence of behavioural  indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding,  Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège,  Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3:  Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1]]Figure 1. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https:// doi .org/ 10 .2527/ jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended for stakeholders using sensor-derived data from dairy cows. They provide recommendations for recording, processing, integrating, and standardising data across sensors, and guidance on deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating those functional traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, there is limited research highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and rapidly recover to its baseline behavioural pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other variables such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, feeding, drinking). It should be explicitly stated that sensor-derived phenotypic traits are proxy measurements, inferred from behavioural patterns to reflect underlying biological states and are not equivalent to veterinary diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information is needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in [https://github.com/adewg/ICAR. https://github.com/adewg/ICAR.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique  Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to [https://wiki.interbull.org/public/beef_guidelines#A2.1_Format ICAR Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals where this cannot be avoided. In such cases, this should be recorded for subsequent verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Where alternative coding systems are used, mappings to ICAR/Interbull codes should be documented. Refer to [https://interbull.org/ib/icarbreedcodes breed codes]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farm Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modelling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor was used on a different animal, it is important that the information provided can be linked to the correct animal. Although considered a minimal risk, duplicate animal IDs have been observed in dairy herds and could lead to inaccurate recording of phenotypic traits. Therefore, this is a recommended step to enhance data collection accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to customers.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of  session with complete data collection) should also be provided. This applies to any other animal based or sensor-derived information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific projects..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The above specified data requirements and arrangements specified for rumination also apply to other behavioral traits measured in minutes (e.g. eating and lying), including associated metadata and aggregation rules such as the total number of measurements per days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as oestrus detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behaviour assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behaviour, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected sensor information such as eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alerts (e.g., oestrus detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using an official external animal identifier (e.g. a national recording scheme or breed registry), or whether a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioural metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioural values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The primary trait evaluated is Rumination Time (min/day). In addition to absolute levels, metrics such as mean, standard deviation, or changes within defined time windows may also be considered. Further sets of variables are currently studied as indicators of overall resilience. This framework considers variability in longitudinal traits, such as rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. These longitudinal patterns should be evaluated within lactations and across successive lactations. Examples of studies that define resilience using longitudinal behavioural data include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlours, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to or in an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to or placed in the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “calibration period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to or placed in the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); days in milk (DIM); and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Linking rumination data to functional traits for genetic evaluation remains challenging, as genetic correlations are not yet well established and the evidence base is still limited. Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations presents challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensor systems, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensor system are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition. Data governance and legal compliance: multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal and regulatory frameworks, including appropriate provisions for privacy and confidentiality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance).&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time.&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background;  and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (h[https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554 ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Open questions to follow up:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If cows are culled before a minimum observation period, how should their rumination records be treated for analytical purposes? How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations).&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets.&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance).&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= ICAR/IDF Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS) =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is a crucial method for assessing the health and metabolic status of dairy cows by estimating their body fat reserves. Regular monitoring of BCS is essential for developing strategies for maintaining optimal body condition, health, welfare and productivity in dairy herds. This document provides standardized guidelines for BCS recording and use, emphasizing its applications in herd management, genetic evaluation, and welfare assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Defining Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is an indicator of the proportion of body fat in cows, providing a reliable measure of body reserves. It is assessed through visual or tactile appraisal and is rationalized into various numerical systems using different scales. The primary purpose of body conditions scoring is to evaluate the energy reserves in dairy cows, which are critical for their health, fertility, longevity, and productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS as an Indicator of Fat Reserve ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before the 1970s, there were no simple measures of a cow’s energy reserves or body condition. Body weight alone is not a reliable measure due to variations in frame size and gut fill. BCS provides a more accurate assessment by focusing on body fat reserves, which are crucial for buffering cows against negative energy balance during early lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS Scoring Systems and Their Diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
A variety of BCS scales inside different systems are used globally, each tailored to specific purposes such as conformation scoring for genetic evaluation, herd management, welfare assessment, and others. The variability in scales can cause confusion when comparing targets and results across farms and breeding programs. Moreover, the precision of BCS scales must be considered as defined by the number of used classes and not the range of the scales. Commonly scales used are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-3 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used for welfare assessment (Welfare Quality®: Assessment protocol for cattle (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;0-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the UK and Ireland, developed by     Jefferies (1961) for ewes and adapted for beef cattle by Lowman et al. (1973).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-10 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in New Zealand, developed by Roche et al. (2004).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-8 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in Australia, developed by Earle et al, (1977).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the US and European countries, with variants proposed by Wildman et al. (1982) and Ferguson et al. (1994). The Ferguson et     al. (1994) scale with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-9 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used of conformation  scoring programs to determine genetic differences among animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different countries use various BCS scales and associated systems based on local practices and requirements for specific purposes. Table 1 gives details on some of the most commonly used systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Details on some of the most commonly used systems&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;Method&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|    &#039;&#039;&#039;References&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United Kingdom&lt;br /&gt;
|0 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (11)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Mulvany (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|New Zealand&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 10&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (19)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation&lt;br /&gt;
|Roche et al. (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 8&lt;br /&gt;
|0.5 (15)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Earle et al. (1977)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Wildman et al. (1982)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|United States&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
|0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Palpation/Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|Ferguson et al. (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Multiple&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 9&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (9)&lt;br /&gt;
|Visual&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|ICAR confirmation classification system]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Using Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Manual Assessment ===&lt;br /&gt;
Manual assessment of BCS involves palpating key body regions (e.g., ribs, spine, hips) to estimate fat and muscle reserves. This method remains reliable but is subject to assessor variability. Consistency in training assessors is crucial to reduce this variability. As differences between scorers, despite efforts to harmonize, can be expected, coded identification of assessors needs to be retained. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example for BCS Based on a 1-5 Scoring Scale ===&lt;br /&gt;
Detailed information describing the 1-5 scoring scale with 0.25 intervals (17 classes) were given by Edmonson et al. (1989). In Figure 1, the major elements for assigning the 5 major steps are given as an example.[[File:Section 7 Figure 8.1.jpg|center|frame|Figure 1: Example of an 1-5 BCS scale chart (Modified from Edmonson et al., 1989).]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Digital Tools ===&lt;br /&gt;
Three main levels of digital tools exist:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Use of digital tools to facilitate on-farm recording and documentation&#039;&#039;&#039;: Facilitates the use of standards when scoring the documentation and the recording of still visual assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-assisted assessments&#039;&#039;&#039;: Human assessors still doing the scoring but using devices to support manual assessment, replacing the     human eye.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Technology-driven assessments with vision-based sensor systems&#039;&#039;&#039;: Purely automatic sensor-based assessments that also allow daily on-farm BCS assessments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For tools of types 2 and 3, reference populations need to include sufficiently extreme animals in order to develop prediction models covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Automated BCS recordings using digital technologies, such as 3D imaging systems (i.e., tools of type 3) offer a more objective and consistent assessment of BCS, typically multiple daily scoring when cows exit the milking system. The frequent and consistent measurements enable detailed analysis for each cow within and across lactations including short term individual and group level management. While minimizing human error and variation, the performance of automated BCS sensor system depends, among other factors, on the training and validation of the models. Human observers should be well trained showing high inter-observer and intra-observer agreement to generate a suitable reference standard. However, technological limitations due to on-farm conditions still make it challenging to achieve full accuracy, particularly when compared with manual palpation. Recent advances in AI models will be crucial to improve even more accuracy (e.g., detection of outliers).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations for Use of BCS Scales ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conversion Between BCS Scales ===&lt;br /&gt;
Conversions between different scales should be used with caution. Simple mathematical conversions may not be accurate due to non-linear use of scales. Conversion methods ranked from least to most reliable ones are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Mathematical Conversion of Scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop purely mathematical conversions, to be used with extreme caution.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Distribution-Based Conversion&#039;&#039;&#039;: Map attributed scores to a common scale using z-scores (Snell, 1965) based on the comparison of uses of scales, can be used under the assumption that the underlying populations have similar distributions of body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Aligning Calibrated BCS scales&#039;&#039;&#039;: An objective way to calibrate any BCS scale is to quantify the change in body weight (kg) associated with a one-unit change in BCS. If such     relationships are available for different BCS scales, a direct and biologically meaningful conversion can be established between them.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Simultaneous Scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;: Develop conversion equations based on simultaneous scoring of large groups of cows, covering the full range of variability in body condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversion methods should always work sufficiently also for extreme animals covering the full range of possible BCS variability in animals to be scored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Body condition scoring plays a vital role in managing dairy herds, allowing farmers to adjust feeding strategies and monitor metabolic health. Frequent BCS assessments help identify cows that are either losing or gaining condition too quickly, which may indicate underlying health or nutritional issues. Table 2 outlines various BCS scales proposed for specific purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Purpose of example BCS Scale.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Purpose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;BCS Scale&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Interval (classes)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Frequency&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Feeding advice&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (5)&lt;br /&gt;
|Frequent and longitudinal&lt;br /&gt;
|Identification of cows with BCS change, indicating potential health problems and allowing optimization of feeding&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of metabolic disturbance&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 5&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0.25 (17)&lt;br /&gt;
|Before and after calving and at least 2 times before peak of lactation (~50 DIM)&lt;br /&gt;
|Enables detection of BCS changes within cow during different stages of lactation in the herd &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Welfare assessment&lt;br /&gt;
|1 to 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 (3)&lt;br /&gt;
|Detect general status of cows (thin-normal-fat)&lt;br /&gt;
|Focus on identification of proportion of cows with unacceptable BCS that is indicator of and risk factor for diseases and disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 outlines the recommended frequency for BCS assessment based on the key stages in the cow’s lactation cycle. For metabolic risk assessment and nutritional management, the within cow differences in BCS between measurement moments should be calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Recommendations for the frequency of BCS assessments.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Moment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pre-calving&lt;br /&gt;
|Approximately 3 weeks before calving to ensure optimal condition&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Early lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Close monitoring at calving/fresh cow&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Peak lactation&lt;br /&gt;
|Detection of nadir in BCS&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dry off period&lt;br /&gt;
|Assess 7-8 weeks before calving to adjust feeding as needed&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An optimal recording scheme could include dry off, pre-calving, calving, early lactation/pre-service, 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; service, pregnancy check, and late lactation. A representative random stratified sample of cows representing all lactations should be measured at key stages to ensure effective assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;For further details, please refer to Gengler et al. (2024) and to the workshop “Recording and evaluation of BCS and its relationship with health and welfare” held in Montreal on the 31st of May 2022, organised by the “ICAR–IDF Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Authors and contributors to guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by a “Joint Expert Advisory Group on BCS Guidelines” which was composed out of members of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group and the IDF Standing Committee of Health and Welfare as well as members of other ICAR Groups and international experts. We would like to thank also the participants can contributors to the ICAR-IDF webinar in Montreal 2022 for their valuable contribution. The c&#039;&#039;orresponding author and leader of elaboration of these guidelines is&#039;&#039; nicolas.gengler@uliege.be.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Citation of guideline&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gengler, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1,&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Gyawali, A.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Brito, L.F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Bewley, J. M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Cole, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, de Jong, G.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Fourdraine, R.H.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Friggens, N.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Haskell, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Heringstad, B.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Kelton, D.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Pryce, J.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Sievert, S.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stock, K. F.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Stephen, M.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Vasseur, E.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Klaas, I.&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner, C&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;.18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;. 2025. ICAR Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Aashish Gywali, LMU, Germany&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;5 CDCB, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; CRV, Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; INRAE, France&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University of Guelph, Canada&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Agriculture Victoria Research, Australia&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; National DHIA &amp;amp; DHIA Services, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy New Zealand, New Zealand&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Section_7_Figure_8.1.jpg&amp;diff=5021</id>
		<title>File:Section 7 Figure 8.1.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=File:Section_7_Figure_8.1.jpg&amp;diff=5021"/>
		<updated>2026-05-19T11:30:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Figure 1: Example of an 1-5 BCS scale chart (Modified from Edmonson et al., 1989).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5020</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5020"/>
		<updated>2026-05-19T11:18:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website here - https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-claw-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file here - https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A  healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It  is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production  efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis  causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of  infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows  primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank  SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all  infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all  infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly  eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae  is fully  eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the  environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical  mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not  necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10%  of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus  dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus  faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all  infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella  pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the  number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than  200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of  udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for  on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and  somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd  management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per  individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the  presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain  threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer  from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform  a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct  overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include  correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such  as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires  different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore,  information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in  operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence,  bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support  at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages,  but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If  available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean  of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might  be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering  milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different  groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an  average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes  which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative  management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk  somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC  on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count  (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price  payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high  levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many  cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused.  When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental  infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete  with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of  contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are  usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe  illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not  invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually  suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good  management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039;              In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039;  Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039;             Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?           &#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of  recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of  inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June,  2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number  cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted  and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June  2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary  treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red,  first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical  mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the  cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et  al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein  Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number  of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average  0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al.,  2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer  and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the  wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly  painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as  digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly  extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with  odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole  and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be  caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization  (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2        Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9;  HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is  normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking.  The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and  is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of  locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often  bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of  movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step  at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is  obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that  limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore  limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow  additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight  on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted.  Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion  with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the  ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement –  Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Observe the foot position and  placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three  positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Directly behind the cow such  that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Left of the cow for a  side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Record the presence of EDGE,  SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Position yourself behind the  cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Ask the producer to shift the  cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       First walk from the right to  the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If the cow does not respond  to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on  the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move  left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If this still does not work,  poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3.       Pay attention to how the cow  shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe if the UNEVEN  indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight  on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe the foot position and  placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after  movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4.       Record presence of behavioural  indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding,  Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège,  Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3:  Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1]]Figure 1. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https:// doi .org/ 10 .2527/ jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended for stakeholders using sensor-derived data from dairy cows. They provide recommendations for recording, processing, integrating, and standardising data across sensors, and guidance on deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating those functional traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, there is limited research highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and rapidly recover to its baseline behavioural pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other variables such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, feeding, drinking). It should be explicitly stated that sensor-derived phenotypic traits are proxy measurements, inferred from behavioural patterns to reflect underlying biological states and are not equivalent to veterinary diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information is needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in [https://github.com/adewg/ICAR. https://github.com/adewg/ICAR.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique  Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to [https://wiki.interbull.org/public/beef_guidelines#A2.1_Format ICAR Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals where this cannot be avoided. In such cases, this should be recorded for subsequent verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Where alternative coding systems are used, mappings to ICAR/Interbull codes should be documented. Refer to [https://interbull.org/ib/icarbreedcodes breed codes]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farm Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modelling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor was used on a different animal, it is important that the information provided can be linked to the correct animal. Although considered a minimal risk, duplicate animal IDs have been observed in dairy herds and could lead to inaccurate recording of phenotypic traits. Therefore, this is a recommended step to enhance data collection accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to customers.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of  session with complete data collection) should also be provided. This applies to any other animal based or sensor-derived information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific projects..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The above specified data requirements and arrangements specified for rumination also apply to other behavioral traits measured in minutes (e.g. eating and lying), including associated metadata and aggregation rules such as the total number of measurements per days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as oestrus detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behaviour assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behaviour, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected sensor information such as eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alerts (e.g., oestrus detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using an official external animal identifier (e.g. a national recording scheme or breed registry), or whether a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioural metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioural values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The primary trait evaluated is Rumination Time (min/day). In addition to absolute levels, metrics such as mean, standard deviation, or changes within defined time windows may also be considered. Further sets of variables are currently studied as indicators of overall resilience. This framework considers variability in longitudinal traits, such as rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. These longitudinal patterns should be evaluated within lactations and across successive lactations. Examples of studies that define resilience using longitudinal behavioural data include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlours, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to or in an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to or placed in the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “calibration period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to or placed in the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); days in milk (DIM); and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Linking rumination data to functional traits for genetic evaluation remains challenging, as genetic correlations are not yet well established and the evidence base is still limited. Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations presents challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensor systems, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensor system are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition. Data governance and legal compliance: multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal and regulatory frameworks, including appropriate provisions for privacy and confidentiality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance).&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time.&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background;  and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (h[https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554 ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Open questions to follow up:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If cows are culled before a minimum observation period, how should their rumination records be treated for analytical purposes? How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations).&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets.&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance).&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= ICAR/IDF Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS) =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is a crucial method for assessing the health and metabolic status of dairy cows by estimating their body fat reserves. Regular monitoring of BCS is essential for developing strategies for maintaining optimal body condition, health, welfare and productivity in dairy herds. This document provides standardized guidelines for BCS recording and use, emphasizing its applications in herd management, genetic evaluation, and welfare assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Defining Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is an indicator of the proportion of body fat in cows, providing a reliable measure of body reserves. It is assessed through visual or tactile appraisal and is rationalized into various numerical systems using different scales. The primary purpose of body conditions scoring is to evaluate the energy reserves in dairy cows, which are critical for their health, fertility, longevity, and productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS as an Indicator of Fat Reserve ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before the 1970s, there were no simple measures of a cow’s energy reserves or body condition. Body weight alone is not a reliable measure due to variations in frame size and gut fill. BCS provides a more accurate assessment by focusing on body fat reserves, which are crucial for buffering cows against negative energy balance during early lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS Scoring Systems and Their Diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
A variety of BCS scales inside different systems are used globally, each tailored to specific purposes such as conformation scoring for genetic evaluation, herd management, welfare assessment, and others. The variability in scales can cause confusion when comparing targets and results across farms and breeding programs. Moreover, the precision of BCS scales must be considered as defined by the number of used classes and not the range of the scales. Commonly scales used are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-3 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used for welfare assessment (Welfare Quality®: Assessment protocol for cattle (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;0-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the UK and Ireland, developed by     Jefferies (1961) for ewes and adapted for beef cattle by Lowman et al. (1973).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-10 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in New Zealand, developed by Roche et al. (2004).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-8 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in Australia, developed by Earle et al, (1977).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the US and European countries, with variants proposed by Wildman et al. (1982) and Ferguson et al. (1994). The Ferguson et     al. (1994) scale with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-9 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used of conformation  scoring programs to determine genetic differences among animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different countries use various BCS scales and associated systems based on local practices and requirements for specific purposes. Table 1 gives details on some of the most commonly used systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
      &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;width: 66; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
      &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:6.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;b&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
      Scale&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
      &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;width: 153; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
      &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:6.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;b&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
      Interval (classes)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
      &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;width: 137; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
      &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:6.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;b&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
      Method&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
      &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;width: 239; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
      &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:6.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;b&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
      References&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 117; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;United &lt;br /&gt;
    Kingdom&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 66; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;0 to 5&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 153; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;0.5 (11)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 137; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    Palpation&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 239; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mulvany &lt;br /&gt;
    (1977)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 117; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;New &lt;br /&gt;
    Zealand&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 66; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1 to 10&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 153; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;0.5 (19)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 137; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    Palpation&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 239; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Roche et &lt;br /&gt;
    al. (2004)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 117; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    Australia&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 66; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1 to 8&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 153; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;0.5 (15)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 137; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Visual&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 239; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Earle et &lt;br /&gt;
    al. (1977)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 117; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;United &lt;br /&gt;
    States&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 66; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1 to 5&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 153; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1 (5)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 137; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    Palpation/Visual&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 239; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Wildman &lt;br /&gt;
    et al. (1982)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 117; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;United &lt;br /&gt;
    States&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 66; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1 to 5&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 153; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;0.25 &lt;br /&gt;
    (17)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 137; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    Palpation/Visual&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 239; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ferguson &lt;br /&gt;
    et al. (1994)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 117; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Multiple&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 66; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1 to 9&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 153; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;1 (9)&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 137; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Visual&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;width: 239; border: 1.0pt solid windowtext; padding: .75pt&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;MsoNormal&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin-bottom:3.0pt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;FR-BE&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;a href=&amp;quot;https://wiki.icar.org/index.php/Section_05_â??_Conformation_Recording&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;color: #0563C1; text-decoration: underline; text-underline: single&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;span lang=&amp;quot;EN-US&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ICAR confirmation classification system&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5019</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5019"/>
		<updated>2026-05-19T11:15:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Dairy Cattle Health */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Introduction ===&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website here - https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-claw-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file here - https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A  healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It  is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production  efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis  causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of  infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows  primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank  SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all  infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all  infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly  eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae  is fully  eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the  environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical  mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not  necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10%  of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus  dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus  faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all  infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella  pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the  number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than  200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of  udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for  on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and  somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd  management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per  individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the  presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain  threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer  from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform  a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct  overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include  correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such  as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires  different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore,  information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in  operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence,  bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support  at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages,  but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If  available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean  of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might  be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering  milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different  groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an  average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes  which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative  management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk  somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC  on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count  (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price  payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high  levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many  cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused.  When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental  infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete  with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of  contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are  usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe  illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not  invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually  suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good  management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039;              In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039;  Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039;             Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?           &#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of  recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of  inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June,  2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number  cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted  and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June  2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary  treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red,  first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical  mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the  cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et  al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein  Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number  of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average  0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al.,  2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer  and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the  wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly  painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as  digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly  extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with  odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole  and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be  caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization  (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2        Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9;  HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is  normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking.  The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and  is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of  locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often  bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of  movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step  at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is  obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that  limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore  limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow  additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight  on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted.  Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion  with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the  ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement –  Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Observe the foot position and  placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three  positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Directly behind the cow such  that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Left of the cow for a  side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Record the presence of EDGE,  SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Position yourself behind the  cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Ask the producer to shift the  cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       First walk from the right to  the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If the cow does not respond  to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on  the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move  left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If this still does not work,  poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3.       Pay attention to how the cow  shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe if the UNEVEN  indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight  on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe the foot position and  placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after  movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4.       Record presence of behavioural  indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding,  Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège,  Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3:  Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1]]Figure 1. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https:// doi .org/ 10 .2527/ jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended for stakeholders using sensor-derived data from dairy cows. They provide recommendations for recording, processing, integrating, and standardising data across sensors, and guidance on deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating those functional traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, there is limited research highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and rapidly recover to its baseline behavioural pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other variables such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, feeding, drinking). It should be explicitly stated that sensor-derived phenotypic traits are proxy measurements, inferred from behavioural patterns to reflect underlying biological states and are not equivalent to veterinary diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information is needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in [https://github.com/adewg/ICAR. https://github.com/adewg/ICAR.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique  Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to [https://wiki.interbull.org/public/beef_guidelines#A2.1_Format ICAR Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals where this cannot be avoided. In such cases, this should be recorded for subsequent verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Where alternative coding systems are used, mappings to ICAR/Interbull codes should be documented. Refer to [https://interbull.org/ib/icarbreedcodes breed codes]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farm Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modelling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor was used on a different animal, it is important that the information provided can be linked to the correct animal. Although considered a minimal risk, duplicate animal IDs have been observed in dairy herds and could lead to inaccurate recording of phenotypic traits. Therefore, this is a recommended step to enhance data collection accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to customers.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of  session with complete data collection) should also be provided. This applies to any other animal based or sensor-derived information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific projects..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The above specified data requirements and arrangements specified for rumination also apply to other behavioral traits measured in minutes (e.g. eating and lying), including associated metadata and aggregation rules such as the total number of measurements per days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as oestrus detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behaviour assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behaviour, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected sensor information such as eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alerts (e.g., oestrus detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using an official external animal identifier (e.g. a national recording scheme or breed registry), or whether a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioural metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioural values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The primary trait evaluated is Rumination Time (min/day). In addition to absolute levels, metrics such as mean, standard deviation, or changes within defined time windows may also be considered. Further sets of variables are currently studied as indicators of overall resilience. This framework considers variability in longitudinal traits, such as rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. These longitudinal patterns should be evaluated within lactations and across successive lactations. Examples of studies that define resilience using longitudinal behavioural data include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlours, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to or in an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to or placed in the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “calibration period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to or placed in the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); days in milk (DIM); and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Linking rumination data to functional traits for genetic evaluation remains challenging, as genetic correlations are not yet well established and the evidence base is still limited. Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations presents challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensor systems, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensor system are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition. Data governance and legal compliance: multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal and regulatory frameworks, including appropriate provisions for privacy and confidentiality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance).&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time.&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background;  and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (h[https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554 ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Open questions to follow up:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If cows are culled before a minimum observation period, how should their rumination records be treated for analytical purposes? How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations).&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets.&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance).&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= ICAR/IDF Guidelines for Body Condition Scoring (BCS) =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Body Condition Scoring (BCS) is a crucial method for assessing the health and metabolic status of dairy cows by estimating their body fat reserves. Regular monitoring of BCS is essential for developing strategies for maintaining optimal body condition, health, welfare and productivity in dairy herds. This document provides standardized guidelines for BCS recording and use, emphasizing its applications in herd management, genetic evaluation, and welfare assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Defining Body Condition Score (BCS) ==&lt;br /&gt;
BCS is an indicator of the proportion of body fat in cows, providing a reliable measure of body reserves. It is assessed through visual or tactile appraisal and is rationalized into various numerical systems using different scales. The primary purpose of body conditions scoring is to evaluate the energy reserves in dairy cows, which are critical for their health, fertility, longevity, and productivity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS as an Indicator of Fat Reserve ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before the 1970s, there were no simple measures of a cow’s energy reserves or body condition. Body weight alone is not a reliable measure due to variations in frame size and gut fill. BCS provides a more accurate assessment by focusing on body fat reserves, which are crucial for buffering cows against negative energy balance during early lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== BCS Scoring Systems and Their Diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
A variety of BCS scales inside different systems are used globally, each tailored to specific purposes such as conformation scoring for genetic evaluation, herd management, welfare assessment, and others. The variability in scales can cause confusion when comparing targets and results across farms and breeding programs. Moreover, the precision of BCS scales must be considered as defined by the number of used classes and not the range of the scales. Commonly scales used are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-3 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used for welfare assessment (Welfare Quality®: Assessment protocol for cattle (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;0-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the UK and Ireland, developed by     Jefferies (1961) for ewes and adapted for beef cattle by Lowman et al. (1973).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-10 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in New Zealand, developed by Roche et al. (2004).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-8 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in Australia, developed by Earle et al, (1977).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-5 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used in the US and European countries, with variants proposed by Wildman et al. (1982) and Ferguson et al. (1994). The Ferguson et     al. (1994) scale with 0.25 increments is widely used by veterinarians in health assessment, as it captures the dynamics in body fat during and across lactations.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;1-9 scale&#039;&#039;&#039;: Used of conformation  scoring programs to determine genetic differences among animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Examples for BCS Systems Across Countries ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different countries use various BCS scales and associated systems based on local practices and requirements for specific purposes. Table 1 gives details on some of the most commonly used systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5018</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5018"/>
		<updated>2026-05-19T10:23:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Introduction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website here - https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-claw-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file here - https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A  healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It  is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production  efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis  causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of  infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows  primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank  SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all  infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all  infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly  eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae  is fully  eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the  environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical  mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not  necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10%  of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus  dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus  faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all  infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella  pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the  number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than  200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of  udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for  on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and  somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd  management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per  individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the  presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain  threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer  from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform  a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct  overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include  correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such  as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires  different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore,  information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in  operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence,  bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support  at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages,  but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If  available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean  of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might  be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering  milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different  groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an  average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes  which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative  management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk  somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC  on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count  (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price  payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high  levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many  cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused.  When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental  infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete  with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of  contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are  usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe  illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not  invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually  suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good  management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039;              In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039;  Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039;             Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?           &#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of  recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of  inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June,  2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number  cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted  and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June  2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary  treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red,  first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical  mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the  cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et  al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein  Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number  of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average  0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al.,  2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer  and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the  wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly  painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as  digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly  extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with  odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole  and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be  caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization  (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2        Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9;  HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is  normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking.  The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and  is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of  locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often  bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of  movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step  at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is  obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that  limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore  limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow  additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight  on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted.  Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion  with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the  ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement –  Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Observe the foot position and  placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three  positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Directly behind the cow such  that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Left of the cow for a  side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Record the presence of EDGE,  SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Position yourself behind the  cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Ask the producer to shift the  cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       First walk from the right to  the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If the cow does not respond  to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on  the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move  left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If this still does not work,  poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3.       Pay attention to how the cow  shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe if the UNEVEN  indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight  on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe the foot position and  placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after  movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4.       Record presence of behavioural  indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding,  Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège,  Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3:  Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1]]Figure 1. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https:// doi .org/ 10 .2527/ jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended for stakeholders using sensor-derived data from dairy cows. They provide recommendations for recording, processing, integrating, and standardising data across sensors, and guidance on deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating those functional traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, there is limited research highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and rapidly recover to its baseline behavioural pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other variables such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, feeding, drinking). It should be explicitly stated that sensor-derived phenotypic traits are proxy measurements, inferred from behavioural patterns to reflect underlying biological states and are not equivalent to veterinary diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information is needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in [https://github.com/adewg/ICAR. https://github.com/adewg/ICAR.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique  Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to [https://wiki.interbull.org/public/beef_guidelines#A2.1_Format ICAR Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals where this cannot be avoided. In such cases, this should be recorded for subsequent verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Where alternative coding systems are used, mappings to ICAR/Interbull codes should be documented. Refer to [https://interbull.org/ib/icarbreedcodes breed codes]&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farm Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modelling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor was used on a different animal, it is important that the information provided can be linked to the correct animal. Although considered a minimal risk, duplicate animal IDs have been observed in dairy herds and could lead to inaccurate recording of phenotypic traits. Therefore, this is a recommended step to enhance data collection accuracy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to customers.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of  session with complete data collection) should also be provided. This applies to any other animal based or sensor-derived information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific projects..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
The above specified data requirements and arrangements specified for rumination also apply to other behavioral traits measured in minutes (e.g. eating and lying), including associated metadata and aggregation rules such as the total number of measurements per days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as oestrus detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behaviour assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behaviour, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected sensor information such as eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alerts (e.g., oestrus detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using an official external animal identifier (e.g. a national recording scheme or breed registry), or whether a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioural metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioural values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The primary trait evaluated is Rumination Time (min/day). In addition to absolute levels, metrics such as mean, standard deviation, or changes within defined time windows may also be considered. Further sets of variables are currently studied as indicators of overall resilience. This framework considers variability in longitudinal traits, such as rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. These longitudinal patterns should be evaluated within lactations and across successive lactations. Examples of studies that define resilience using longitudinal behavioural data include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlours, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to or in an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to or placed in the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “calibration period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to or placed in the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); days in milk (DIM); and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Linking rumination data to functional traits for genetic evaluation remains challenging, as genetic correlations are not yet well established and the evidence base is still limited. Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations presents challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensor systems, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensor system are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition. Data governance and legal compliance: multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal and regulatory frameworks, including appropriate provisions for privacy and confidentiality&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance).&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time.&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background;  and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (h[https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554 ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Open questions to follow up:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If cows are culled before a minimum observation period, how should their rumination records be treated for analytical purposes? How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations).&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets.&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance).&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5017</id>
		<title>Section 07 – Bovine Functional Traits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_07_%E2%80%93_Bovine_Functional_Traits&amp;diff=5017"/>
		<updated>2026-05-19T09:39:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Background and aim of the guideline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Dairy Cattle Health =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
Improved health of dairy cattle is of increasing economic importance. Poor health results in greater production costs through higher veterinary bills, additional labour costs, and reduced productivity. Animal welfare is also of increasing interest to both consumers and regulatory agencies because healthy animals are needed to provide high-quality food for human consumption. Furthermore, this is consistent with the European Union animal health strategy that emphasizes disease prevention over treatment. Animal health issues may be addressed either directly, by measuring and selecting against liability to disease, or indirectly by selecting against traits correlated with injury and illness. Direct observations of health and disease events, and their inclusion in recording, evaluation and selection schemes, will maximize the efficiency of genetic selection programs. The Scandinavian countries have been routinely collecting and utilizing those data for years, demonstrating the feasibility of such programs. Experience with direct health data in non-Scandinavian countries is still limited. Due to the complexity of health and diseases, programs may differ between countries. This document presents best-practices with respect to data collection practices, trait definition, and use of health data in genetic evaluation programs and can be extended to its use for other farm management purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Introduction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The improvement of cattle health is of increasing economic importance for several reasons. Impaired health results in increased production costs (veterinary medical care and therapy, additional labour, and reduced performance), while prices for dairy products and meat are decreasing. Consumers also want to see improvements in food safety and better animal welfare. Improvement in the general health of the cattle population is necessary for the production of high-quality food and implies significant progress with regard to animal welfare. Improved welfare also is consistent with the EU animal health strategy, which states that that prevention is better than treatment (European Commission, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;European Commission, 2007: European Union Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013): prevention is better than cure. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_strategy_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health issues may be addressed either directly or indirectly. Indirect measures of health and disease have been included in routine performance tests by many countries. However, directly observed measures of health and disease need to be included in recording, evaluation and selection schemes in order to increase the efficiency of genetic improvement programs for animal health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries, direct health data have been routinely collected and utilized for years, with recording based on veterinary medical diagnoses (Nielsen, 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Philipsson &amp;amp; Linde, 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phillipson, J., Lindhe, B., 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Sci. 83: 99-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås &amp;amp; Sølverød, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Sølverød, L., 2005. Mastitis control systems: the Norwegian experience. In: Hogevven, H. (Ed.), Mastitis in dairy production: Current knowledge and future solutions, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 91-101.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In the non-Scandinavian countries experience with direct health data is still limited, but interest in using recorded diagnoses or observations of disease has increased considerably in recent years (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Neuenschwender, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T.F.O., 2010. Studies on disease resistance based on producer-recorded data in Canadian Holsteins. PhD thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Appuhamy &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Appuhamy, J.A.D.R.N., Cassell, B.G., Cole, J.B., 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationship of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1785-1795.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Grassauer, B., Janacek, R., Schallerl, F., Litzllachner, C., Koeck, A., Mayerhofer, M., Miesenberger J., Schoder, G., Sturmlechner, F., Wagner, A., Zottl, K., 2010. Registration of health traits in Austria - experience review. Proc. ICAR 37th Annual Meeting - Riga, Latvia. 31.5. - 4.6. 2010. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst, C., Schwarzenbacher, H., Grassauer, B., Mayerhofer, M., Koeck, A., 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria - experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Neuschwander &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., F. Miglior, J. Jamrozik, O. Berke, D. F. Kelton, and L. Schaeffer. 2012. Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle. Animal DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the complex biology of health and disease, guidelines should mainly address general aspects of working with direct health data. Specific issues for the major disease complexes are discussed, but breed- or population-specific focuses may require amendments to these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
The collection of direct information on health and disease status of individual animals is preferable to collection of indirect information. However, population-wide collection of reliable health information may be easier to implement for indirect rather than direct measures of health. Analyses of health traits will probably benefit from combined use of direct and indirect health data, but clear distinctions must be drawn between these two types of data:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Direct health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses or observations of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical signs or findings indicative of diseases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indirect health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Objectively measurable indicator traits (e.g., somatic cell count, milk urea nitrogen, health biomarkers)&lt;br /&gt;
# Subjectively assessable indicator traits (e.g., body condition score, conformation scores)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health data may originate from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity. Therefore, the data source must be clearly indicated whenever information on health and disease status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account when defining health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following sections, possible sources of health data are discussed, together with information on which types of data may be provided, specific advantages and disadvantages associated with those sources, and issues which need to be addressed when using those sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily report direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Provide disease diagnoses (documented reasons for application of pharmaceuticals), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease, and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific veterinary medical diagnoses (high-quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Legal obligations of documentation in some countries (possible utilization of already established recording practices).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Only severe cases of disease may be reported (need for veterinary intervention and pharmaceutical therapy).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible delay in reporting (gap between onset of disease and veterinary visit).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Producers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primarily direct health data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease observations (&#039;diagnoses&#039;), possibly supplemented by findings indicative of disease and/or information on indicator traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on a broad spectrum of health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Minor cases not requiring veterinary intervention may be included.&lt;br /&gt;
# First-hand information on onset of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (routine performance testing, reporting of calving, documentation of inseminations).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Risk of false diagnoses and misinterpretation of findings indicative of disease (lack of veterinary medical knowledge).&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible need to confine recording to the most relevant diseases (modest risk of misinterpretation, limited extra time and effort for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra documentation might be needed.&lt;br /&gt;
# Need for expert support and training (veterinarian) to ensure data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, and may be dependent on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remarks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Data logistics depend on technical equipment on the farm (documentation using herd management software (e.g. including tools to record hoof trimming, diseases, vaccinations,..), handheld for online recording, information transfer through personnel from milk recording agencies.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible producer-specific documentation focuses must be considered in all stages of analyses (checks for completeness of health / disease incident documentation; see Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
# Preliminary research suggests that epidemiological measures calculated from producer-recorded data are similar to those reported in the veterinary literature (Cole &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., Sanders, A.H., and Clay, J.S., 2006: Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling. J. Dairy Sci. 89(Suppl. 1):10(abstr. M7).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Expert groups (claw trimmer, nutritionist, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct and indirect health data with a spectrum of traits according to area of expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific and detailed information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high-quality data), &lt;br /&gt;
# Possible access to screening data (information on the whole herd at a given point in time), &lt;br /&gt;
# Personal interest in documentation (possible utilization of already-established recording practices)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Limited spectrum of traits, &lt;br /&gt;
# Dependence on the level of expert knowledge (certification/licensure of recording persons may be advisable),&lt;br /&gt;
# Extra time and effort for recording (complete and consistent documentation cannot be taken for granted, recording routine and data flow need to be established)&lt;br /&gt;
# Business interests may interfere with objective documentation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Others (laboratories, on-farm technical equipment, etc.) ====&lt;br /&gt;
Content&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Indirect health data with spectrum of traits according to sampling protocols and testing requests, e.g., microbiological testing, metabolite analyses, hormone tests, virus/bacteria DNA, infrared-based measurements (Soyeurt &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2009a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Dardenne, P., Gengler, N, 2009a. Detection and correction of outliers for fatty acid contents measured by mid-infrared spectrometry using random regression test-day models. 60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Soyeurt, H., Arnould, V.M.-R., Dardenne, P., Stoll, J., Braun, A., Zinnen, Q., Gengler, N. 2009b. Variability of major fatty acid contents in Luxembourg dairy cattle.60th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, Barcelona 24-27, 2009, Spain.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Specific information on a range of health traits important for the producer (high quality data).&lt;br /&gt;
# Objective measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
# Automated or semi-automated recording systems (possible utilization of already established data logistics).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interpretation with regard to disease relevance not always clear.&lt;br /&gt;
# Validation and combined use of data may be problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Overview of the possible sources of direct and indirect health information.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Source of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect health information&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Veterinarian&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Producer&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Expert groups&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibly&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Others&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Yes&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data. However, the central role of dairy cattle health in the context of animal welfare and consumer protection implies that farmers and veterinarians are obligated to maintain high-quality records, emphasizing the particular sensitivity of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of health data has to be considered according to national requirements and applicable data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed. The following issues must be addressed with respect to data exchange agreements:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of information to be stored in the health database, e.g., inclusion of details on therapy with pharmaceuticals, doses and medication intervals).&lt;br /&gt;
# Institutions authorized to administer the health database, and to analyse the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access rights of (original) health data and results from analyses of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ownership of the data and authority to permit transfer and use of those data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enrolment forms for recording and use of health data (to be signed by the farmers) have been compiled by the institutions responsible for data storage and analysis or governmental authorities (e.g., Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For any health database it must be guaranteed that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The individual farmers can only access detailed information on their own farm, and for animals only pertaining to their presence on that farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The right to edit health data are limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# Access to any treatment information is confined to the farmer and the veterinarian responsible for the specific treatment, with the option of anonymizing the veterinary data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a necessary precondition for farmers to develop enough trust in the system to provide data. The recording of treatment data is much more sensitive than only diagnoses, and the need to collect and store such data should be very carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements for documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal ID (ISO number).&lt;br /&gt;
# Place of recording (unique ID of farm/herd).&lt;br /&gt;
# Source of data (veterinarian, producer, expert group, others).&lt;br /&gt;
# Date of health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of health incident (standardized code for recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective health incident (exact location, severity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on type of diagnosis (first or subsequent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of direct and indirect health data requires that information on health status be combined with other information on the affected animals (basic information such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records). Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the health data base must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Widespread collection of health data may benefit from legal frameworks for documentation and use of diagnostic data. European legislation requests documentation of health incidents which involved application of pharmaceuticals to animals in the food chain. Veterinary medical diagnoses may, therefore, be available through the treatment records kept by veterinarians and farmers. However, it must be ensured that minimum requirements for data recording are followed; in particular, it must be noted that animal identification schemes are not uniform within or across countries. Furthermore, it must be a clear distinction made between prophylactic and therapeutic use of pharmaceuticals, with the former being excluded from disease statistics. Information on prophylaxis measures may be relevant for interpretation of health data (e.g., dry cow therapy), but should not be misinterpreted as indicators of disease. While recording of the use of pharmaceuticals is encouraged it is not uniformly required internationally, and health data should be collected regardless of the availability of treatment information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Standardization of recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
In order to avoid misinterpretation of health information and facilitate analysis, a unique code should be used for recording each type of health incident. This code must fulfil the following conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clear definitions of the health incidents to be recorded, without opportunities for different interpretations.&lt;br /&gt;
# Includes a broad spectrum of diseases and health incidents, covering all organ systems, and address infectious and non-infectious diseases.&lt;br /&gt;
# Understandable by all parties likely to be involved in data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Permit the recording of different levels of detail, ranging from very specific diagnoses of veterinarian compared to very general diagnoses or observations by producers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Starting from a very detailed code of diagnoses, recording systems may be developed that use only a subset of the more extensive code. However, the identical event identifiers submitted to the health database must always have the same meaning. Therefore, data must be coded using a uniform national, or preferably international, scheme before entering information into the central health database. In the case of electronic recording of health data, it is the responsibility of the software providers to ensure that the standard interface for direct and/or indirect health data is properly implemented in their products. When farmers are permitted to define their own codes the mapping of those custom codes to standard codes is a substantial challenge, and careful consideration should be paid to that problem (see, e.g., Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive code of diagnoses with about 1,000 individual input options (diagnoses) is provided as an appendix to these guidelines. It is based on the code of diagnoses developed in Germany by the veterinarian Staufenbiel (&#039;zentraler Diagnoseschlüssel&#039;) (Annex). The structure of this code is hierarchical, and it may represent a &#039;gold standard&#039; for the recording of direct health data. It includes very specific diagnoses which may be valuable for making management decisions on farms, as well as broad diagnoses with little specificity for analyses which require information on large numbers of animals (e.g. genetic evaluation). Furthermore, it allows the recording of selected prophylactic and biotechnological measures which may be relevant for interpretation of recorded health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Scandinavian countries and in Austria codes with 60 to 100 diagnoses are used, allowing documentation of the most important health problems of cattle. Diagnoses are grouped by disease complexes and are used for documentation by treating veterinarians (Osteras &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Osteras, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O. 2012. Årsrapport Helsekortordningen 2011.pdf. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://storfehelse.no/6689.cms&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed, April 16, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For documentation of direct health data by expert groups, special subsets of the comprehensive code may be used. Examples for claw trimmers can be found in the literature (e.g. Capion &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Capion, N., Thamsborg, S.M.,Enevoldsen, C., 2008. Prevalence of foot lesions in Danish Holstein cows. Veterinary Record 2008, 163:80-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Thomsen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039;2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomsen, P.T., Klaas, I.C. and Bach, K., 2008. Short communication: scoring of digital dermatitis during milking as an alternative to scoring in a hoof trimming chute. J. Dairy Sci. 91:4679-4682.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Maier, 2009a, b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maier, M., 2009. Erfassung von Klauenveränderungen im Rahmen der Klauenpflege. Diplomarbeit, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Buch &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Buch, L.H., Sorensen, A.C., Lassen, J., Berg, P., Eriksson, J-.A., Jakobsen, J.H., Sorensen, M.K., 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1540-1551.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When working with producer-recorded data, a simplified code of diagnoses should be provided which includes only a subset of the extensive code (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Diagnoses included must be clearly defined and observable without veterinary medical expertise. Such a reduced code may, for example, consider mastitis, lameness, cystic ovarian disease, displaced abomasum, ketosis, metritis/uterine disease, milk fever and retained placenta (Neuenschwander &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Neuenschwander, T. F.-O., Miglior, F., Jamrocik, J., Schaeffer, L. R., 2008. Comparison of different methods to validate a dataset with producer-recorded health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/dcbgc/Agenda0809/Health_180908.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The United States model (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) is event-based, and permits very general reports (e.g., This cow had ketosis on this day.&amp;quot;), as well as very specific ones (e.g., &amp;quot;This cow had Staph. aureus mastitis in the right, rear quarter on this day.&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mandatory information will be used for basic plausibility checks. Additional information can be used for more sophisticated and refined validation of health data when those data are available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered to record and transmit health data. &lt;br /&gt;
# If information on the person recording the data are provided, that individual must be authorized to submit data for this specific farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal for which health information is submitted must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the reported health incident.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the health incident must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular health event can only be recorded once per animal per day.&lt;br /&gt;
# The contents of the transmitted health record must include a valid disease code. In the case of known selective recording of health events (e.g., only claw diseases, only mastitis, no calf diseases), the health record must fit the specified disease category for which health data are supposed to be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# For sources of data with limited authorization to submit health data, the health record must fit the specified disease category (e.g., locomotory diseases for claw trimmers, metabolic disorders for nutritionists).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specific quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
In order to produce reliable and meaningful statistics on the health status in the cattle population, recording of health events should be as complete as possible on all farms participating in the health improvement program. Ideally, the intensity of observation and completeness of documentation should be the same for all animals regardless of sex, age, and individual performance. Only then will a complete picture of the overall health status in the population emerge. However, this ideal situation of uniform, complete, and continuous recording may rarely be achieved, so methods must be developed to distinguish between farms with desirably good health status of animals and farms with poor recording practices. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Countries with on-going programs of recording and evaluation of health data require a minimum number of diagnoses per cow and year (e.g., Denmark: 0.3 diagnoses; Austria: 0.1 first diagnoses); continuity of data registration needs to be considered. Farms that fail to achieve these values are automatically excluded from further analyses until their recording has improved. However, herd sizes need to be considered when defining minimum reporting frequencies to avoid possible biases in favour of larger or smaller farms. Any fixed procedure involves the risk of excluding farms with extraordinary good herd health, but to avoid biased statistics there seems to be no alternative to criteria for inclusion, and setting minimum lower limits for reporting. Different criteria will be needed for diseases that occur with low frequency versus those with high frequency, particularly when the cost of a rare illness is very high compared to a common one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because recording practices and completeness on farms may not be uniform across disease categories (e.g., no documentation of claw diseases by the producer), data should be periodically checked by disease category to determine what data should be included. Use of the most-thoroughly documented group of health traits to make decisions about inclusion or exclusion of a specific farm may lead to considerable misinterpretation of health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are limited options to routinely check health data for consistency on a per animal basis. Some diagnoses may only be possible in animals of specific sex, age, or physiological state. Examples can be found in the literature (Kelton &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1998&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kelton, D. F., Lissemore, K. D., Martin. R. E., 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 2502-2509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010). Criteria for plausibility checks will be discussed in the trait-specific part of these guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of health data included, long-term acceptance of the health recording system and success of the health improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. To achieve this, frequent, honest, and open communications between the institutions responsible for storage and analysis of health data and people in the field is necessary. Producers, veterinarians and experts will only adopt and endorse new approaches and technologies when convinced that they will have positive impacts on their own businesses. Mutual benefits from information exchange and favourable cost-benefit ratios need to be communicated clearly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a key objective of data collection is the development a of genetic improvement program for health, producers must be presented with a reasonable timeline for events. When working with low-heritability traits that are differentially recorded much more data will be necessary for the calculation of accurate breeding values than for typical production traits. It is very important that everyone is aware of the need to accumulate a sufficient dataset to support those calculations, which may take several years. This will help ensure that participants remain motivated, rather than become discouraged when new products are not immediately provided. The development of intermediate products, such as reports of national incidence rates and changes over time, could provide tools useful to producers between the start of data collection and the introduction of genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health reports, produced for each of the participating farms and distributed to authorized persons, will help to provide early rewards to those participating in health data recording. To assist with management decisions on individual farms, health reports should contain within-herd statistics (health status of all animals on the farm and stratified by age and/or performance group), as well as across-herd statistics based on regional farms of similar size and structure. Possible access to the health reports by authorized veterinarians or experts will help to maximize the benefits of data recording by ensuring that competent help with data interpretation is provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Most health incidents in dairy herds fit into a few major disease complexes (e.g., Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), each of which implies that specific issues be addressed when working with related health information. In particular, variation exists with regard to options for plausibility checks of incoming data including eligible animal group, time frame of diagnoses, and possibility of repeated diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distinctions must be drawn between diseases which may only occur once in an animal&#039;s lifetime (maximum of one record per animal) or once in a predefined time period (e.g., maximum of one record per lactation) on the one hand and disease which may occur repeatedly throughout the life-cycle. Assumptions regarding disease intervals, i.e., the minimum time period after which the same health incident may be considered as a recurrent case rather than an indicator of prolonged disease, need to be considered when comparing figures of disease prevalences and distributions. Furthermore, it must be decided if only first diagnoses or first and recurrent diagnoses are included in lifetime and/or lactation statistics. Differences will have considerable impact on comparability of results from health data analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder health ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis is the qualitatively and quantitatively most important udder health trait in dairy cattle (e.g. Amand &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Wolff, 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wolff, C., 2012. Validation of the Nordic Disease Recording Systems for Dairy Cattle with Special Reference to Clinical Mastitis. Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2012. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8546/1/wolff_c_120110.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The term mastitis refers to any inflammation of the mammary gland, i.e., to both subclinical and clinical mastitis. However, when collecting direct health data one should clearly distinguish between clinical and subclinical cases of mastitis. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an increased number of somatic cells in the milk without accompanying signs of disease, and somatic cell count (SCC) has been included in routine performance testing by many countries, representing an indicator trait for udder health (indirect health data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cows affected by clinical mastitis show signs of disease of different severity, with local findings at the udder and/or perceivable changes of milk secretion possibly being accompanied by poor general condition. Recording of clinical mastitis (direct health data) will usually require specific monitoring, because reliable methods for automated recording have not yet been developed. Documentation should not be confined to cows in first lactation but include cows of second and subsequent lactations. Optional information on cases that may be documented and used for specific analyses includes &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of clinical disease (acute, chronic).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of secretion changes (catarrhal, hemorrhagic, purulent, necrotizing).&lt;br /&gt;
# Evidence of pathogens which may be responsible for the inflammation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Location of disease (affected quarter or quarters).&lt;br /&gt;
# Presence of general signs of disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Appropriate analyses of information on clinical mastitis require consideration of the time of onset or first diagnosis of disease (days in milk). Clinical mastitis developing early and late in lactation may be considered as separate traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 2. Udder health trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(obligatory: sex = female)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses in younger females may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10 days before calving to 305 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Exceptions possible&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(where appropriate, diagnoses beyond -10 to 305 days in milk may be considered separately; shorter reference periods may be defined)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible per animal and lactation&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reproductive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Reproductive disorders represents a set of diseases which have the same effect (reduced fertility or reproductive performance), but differ in pathogenesis, course of disease, organs involved, possible therapeutic approaches, etc. To allow the use of collected health data for improvement of management on the herd and/or animal level, recording of reproductive disorders should be as specific as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grouping of health incidents belonging to this disease complex may be based on the time of occurrence and/or organ involved. Within each of these disease groups, specific plausibility checks must be applied considering, for example, time frame of diagnoses and possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (recurrence). Fixed dates to be considered include the length of the bovine ovarian cycle (21 days) and the physiological recovery time of reproductive organs after calving (total length of puerperium: 42 days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gestation disorders and peri-partum disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Embryonic death, abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bradytocia (uterine inertia), perineal rupture.&lt;br /&gt;
# Retained placenta, puerperal disease, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Irregular oestrus cycle and sterility ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Cystic ovaries, silent heat.&lt;br /&gt;
# Metritis (uterine infection), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 3. Reproduction trait considerations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heifers and cows&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Minimum age should be consistent with performance data analyses&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Fixed patho-physiological time frames should be considered (e.g. Duration of puerperium, cycle length)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Genital malformation), maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Retained placenta) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation (e.g. Cystic ovaries)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (e.g. 21 days for cystic ovaries because of direct relation to the ovary cycle)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of locomotory diseases may be performed on different level of specificity. Minimum requirement for recording may be documentation of locomotion score (lameness score) without details on the exact diagnoses. However, use of some general trait lameness will be of little value for deriving management measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the heterogeneous pathogenesis of locomotory disease, recording of diagnoses should be as specific as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rough distinction may be drawn between &#039;&#039;&#039;claw diseases&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;other locomotory diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;, but results of health data analyses will be more meaningful when more detailed information is available. Therefore, recording of specific diagnoses is strongly recommended. Determination of the cause of disease and options for treatment and prevention will benefit from detailed documentation of affected structure(s), exact location, type and extent of visible changes. Such details may be primarily available through veterinarians (more severe cases of locomotory diseases) and claw trimmers (screening data and less severe cases of locomotory diseases). However, experienced farmers may also provide valuable information on health of limbs and claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Care must be taken when referring to terms from farmers&#039; jargon, because definitions are often rather vague and diagnoses of diseases may be inconsistent. Documentation practices differ based on training and professional standards, e.g., claw trimmers and veterinarians, as well as nationally and internationally, and different schemes have been implemented in various on-farm data collection systems. To ensure uniform central storage and analysis of data, tools for mapping data to a consistent set of keys must to be developed, and unambiguous technical terms (veterinary medical diagnoses) should be used in documentation whenever possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Claw diseases ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Laminitis complex (white line disease, sole haemorrhage, sole duplication, wall lesions, wall buckling, wall concavity).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sole ulcer (sole ulcer at typical site = rusterholz&#039;s disease, sole ulcer at atypical site, sole ulcer at tip of claw).&lt;br /&gt;
# Digital dermatitis (mortellaro&#039;s disease = hairy foot warts = heel warts = papillomatous digital dermatitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Heel horn erosion (erosio ungulae = slurry heel).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon (interdigital necrobacillosis = foot rot), interdigital hyperplasia (interdigital fibroma = limax = tylom).&lt;br /&gt;
# Circumscribed aseptic pododermatitis, septic pododermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# Horn cleft, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The expertise of professional claw trimmers should be used when recording claw diseases. In herds with regular claw trimming (by the producer or a professional claw trimmer) accessibility of screening data, i.e., information on claw status of all animals regardless of regular or irregular locomotion (lameness) or absence or presence of other signs of disease (e.g., swelling, heat), will significantly increase the total amount of available direct health data, enhancing the reliability of analyses of those traits. Incidences of claw diseases may be biased if they are collected on based on examinations, or treatment, of lame animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other information about claws which may be relevant to interpret overall claw health status of the individual animal, such as claw angles, claw shape or horn hardness, also may be documented. Some aspects of claw conformation may already be assessed in the course of conformation evaluation. Analyses of claw disease may benefit from inclusion of such indirect health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Foot and claw disorders - Harmonized description ====&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to ICAR Claw Atlas for detailed descriptions. The Claw Atlas is available on the ICAR website:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# As a .pdf file in English [http://www.icar.org/wp%20zcontent/uploads/2016/02/ICAR-Claw%20-Health-Atlas.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# Translations in twenty other languages [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in English [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-English.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
# As a poster in German [http://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Poster-Claw-Atlas-in-German.pdf here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other locomotory diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lameness (lameness score).&lt;br /&gt;
# Joint diseases (arthritis, arthrosis, luxation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Disease of muscles and tendons (myositis, tendinitis, tendovaginitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neural diseases (neuritis, paralysis), ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low frequencies of distinct diagnoses will probably interfere with analyses of other locomotory diseases involving a high level of specificity. Nevertheless, the improvement of locomotory health on the animal and/or farm level will require detailed disease information indicating causative factors which need to be eliminated. The use of data from veterinarians may allow deeper insight into improvement options. Despite a substantial loss of precision, simple recording of lame animals by the producers may be the easiest system to implement on a routine basis. Rapidly increasing amounts of data may then argue for including lameness or lameness score in advanced analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 4. Considerations for locomotion traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Metabolic and digestive disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
The range of bovine metabolic and digestive disorders is generally rather broad, including diverse infectious and non-infectious disease. Although each of these diseases may have significant impacts on individual animal performance and welfare, few of them are of quantitative importance. Major diseases can broadly be characterized as disturbances of mineral or carbohydrate metabolism, which are caused in the lactating cow primarily by imbalances between dietary requirements and intakes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk fever (i.e., hypocalcaemia, periparturient paresis), tetany (i.e., hypomagnesiaemia).&lt;br /&gt;
# Ketosis (i.e., acetonaemia), ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Digestive disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Ruminal acidosis, ruminal alkalosis, ruminal tympany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Abomasal tympany, abomasal ulcer, abomasal displacement (left displacement of the abomasum, right displacement of the abomasum).&lt;br /&gt;
# Enteritis (catarrhous enteritis, hemorrhagic enteritis, pseudomembranous enteritis, necrotisizing enteritis).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 5. Considerations for metabolic traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no sex or age restriction or restriction to adult females (calving-related disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: no time restriction or restriction to (extended) peripartum period&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per lactation (e.g. Milk fever), possibility of multiple diagnoses per lactation and independent of lactation (e.g. Enteritis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Others diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases affecting other organ systems may occur infrequently. However, recording of those diseases is strongly recommended to get complete information on the health status of individual animals. Interpretation of the effect of certain diseases on overall health and performance will only be possible, if the whole spectrum of health problems is included in the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Diseases of the urinary tract (hemoglobinuria, hematuria, renal failure, pyelonephritis, urolithiasis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Respiratory disease (tracheitis, bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Skin diseases (parakeratosis, furunculosis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Cardiovascular disease (cardiac insufficiency, endocarditis, myocarditis, thrombophlebitis, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 6. Considerations for other disease traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No sex or age restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex- and/or age-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |No time restriction&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal independent of lactation (e.g. Tracheitis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case rather than prolonged disease (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calf diseases ===&lt;br /&gt;
Impaired calf health may have considerable impact on dairy cattle productivity. Optimization of raising conditions will not only have short-term positive effects with lower frequencies of diseased calves, but also may result in better condition of replacement heifers and cows. However, management practices with regard to the male and female calves usually differ between farms and need to be considered when analysing health data. On most dairy farms the incentive to record health events systematically and completely will be much higher for female than for male calves. Therefore, it may be necessary to generally exclude the male calves from prevalence statistics and further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Omphalitis (omphalophlebitis, omphaloarteriitis, omphalourachitis).&lt;br /&gt;
# Umbilical hernia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Congenital heart defect (persitent ductus arteriosus botalli, patent foramen ovale, ...).&lt;br /&gt;
# Neonatal asphyxia.&lt;br /&gt;
# Enzootic pneumonia of calves.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disturbance of oesophageal groove reflex.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calf diarrhea, ... .&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 7. Considerations for calf health traits.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Parameters to check incoming health data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Recommended inclusion criterion&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Remarks&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Eligible animal group&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calves&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sex-dependent differences in intensity of systematic recording should be considered&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Time frame of diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease (e.g. Neonatal period, suckling period)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Possible definition of risk periods (where appropriate, diagnoses beyond may be considered separately)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Repeated diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Depending on type of disease: maximum of one diagnosis per animal (e.g. Neonatal asphyxia) or possibility of multiple diagnoses per animal&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(e.g. Diarrhea)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Definition of minimum time period after which same diagnosis may be considered as recurrent case (no clear physiological reference period)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Rapid feedback is essential for farmers and veterinarians to encourage the development of an efficient health monitoring system. Information can be provided soon after the data collection begins in the form individual farm statistics. If those results include metrics of data quality, then producers may have an incentive to quickly improve their data collection practices. Regional or national statistics should be provided as soon as possible as well. Early detection and prevention of health problems is an important step towards increasing economic efficiency and sustainable cattle breeding. Accordingly, health reports are a valuable tool to keep farmers and veterinarians motivated and ensure continuity of recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect observations need to be combined for adequate and detailed evaluations of health status. Reference should be made to key figures such as calving interval, pregnancy rate after first insemination, and non-return rate. A short time interval between calving and many diagnoses of fertility disorders is due to the high levels of physiological stress in the peripartum period, and also may indicate that a farmer is actively working to improve fertility in their herd. A low rate of reported mastitis diagnoses is not necessarily proof of good udder health, but may reflect poor monitoring and documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to recording disease events, on-farm system also can be used to record useful management information, such as body condition scores, locomotion scores, and milking speed (USDA, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USDA, 2010. Format 6, the data exchange format health events. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://aipl.arsusda.gov/CFRCS/GetRCS.cfm?DocType=formats&amp;amp;DocName=fmt6.html&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Individual animal statuses (clear/possibly infected/infected) for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis (Johne&#039;s disease) and leukosis also may be tracked. Such data may be useful for monitoring animal welfare on individual farms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Farmers ====&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for economically successful farming. Timely availability of direct health information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for early detection of problems in a herd. Therefore, health data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Janacek, R., Mayerhofer, M., Obritzhauser, W., Reith, F., Tiefenthaller, F., Wagner, A., Winter, P., Wöckinger, M., Wurm, K., Zottl, K., 2007. Sustainable cattle breeding supported by health reports. 58th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 26-29, 2007, Dublin.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
The EU-Animal Health Strategy (2007-2013), &#039;Prevention is better than cure&#039;, underscores the increased importance placed on preventive rather than curative measures. This implicates a change of the focus of the veterinary work from therapy towards herd health management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the consent of the farmer, the veterinarian can access all available information about herd health. The most important information should be provided to the farmer and veterinarian in the same way to facilitate discussion at eye-level. However, veterinarians may be interested in additional details requiring expert knowledge for appropriate interpretation. Health recording and evaluation programs should account for the need of users to view different levels of detail.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The overall health status of the herd will benefit from the frequent exchange of information between farmers and veterinarians and their close cooperation. Incorrect interpretation or poor documentation of health events by the farmer may be recognised by attending veterinarians, who can help correct those errors. Herd health reports will provide a valuable and powerful tool to jointly define goals and strategies for the future, and to measure the success of previous actions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick access to herd health data. Only then can acute health problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general health status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level. References for management decisions which account for the regional differences should be made available (Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010; Schwarzenbacher &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schwarzenbacher, H., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., 2010. Health monitoring yystem in Austrian dual purpose Fleckvieh cattle: incidences and prevalences. In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 61th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, August 23-27, 2010 Heraklion, Greece.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general health status it is important to place target oriented measures. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ministries and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that all information, including both direct and indirect observations, be taken into account when monitoring activity and preparing reports. For example, information on clinical mastitis should be combined with somatic cell count or laboratory results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is extremely important to clearly define the respective reference groups for all analyses. Otherwise, regional differences in data recording, influences of herd structure and variation in trait definition may lead to misinterpretation of results. To ensure the reliability of health statistics it may be necessary to define inclusion criteria, for example a minimum number of observations (health records) per herd over a set time period. Such lower limits must account for the overall set-up of the health monitoring program (e.g., size of participating farms, voluntary or obligatory participation in health recording).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key measures that may be used for comparisons among populations are incidence and prevalence. In any publication it must be clear which of the two rates is reported, and also how the rates have been calculated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Incidence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of new cases of the disease or health incident in a given population occurring in a specified time period which may be fixed and identical for all individuals of the population (e.g., one year or one month) or relate to the individual age or production period (e.g., lactation = day 1 to day 305 in milk).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the lactation incidence rate (LIR) of clinical mastitis (CM) can be calculated as the number of new CM cases observed between day 1 and day 305 in milk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 1. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn1.png|center|thumb|572x572px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another, and arguably a more accurate incidence rate could be calculated, by taking into account the total number of days at risk in the denominator population. This allows for the fact that some animals will leave the herd prematurely (or may join the herd late) and will therefore not contribute a &#039;full unit&#039; of time of risk to the calculation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 2. For computation of lactation incidence rate for clinical mastitis taking account of day as risk.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn2.png|center|thumb|571x571px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where N(days) is the total number of days that individual cows were present in the herd when between 1 and 305 days in milk; ie a cow present throughout lactation will add 305 days, a cow culled on day 30 of lactation will only contribute 30 days etc., … (divided by 305 as that is the period of analysis).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Prevalence&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Number of individuals affected by the disease or health incident in a given population at a particular point in time or in a specified time period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 3. For computation of prevalence of clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageeqn3.png|center|thumb|558x558px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Traits for which breeding values are predicted differ between countries and dairy breeds. However, total merit indices have generally shifted towards functional traits over the last several years (Ducrocq, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ducrocq, V., 2010: Sustainable dairy cattle breeding: illusion or reality? 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 1.-6.8.2010, Leipzig, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Currently, most countries use indirect health data like somatic cell counts or non-return rates for genetic evaluation to improve health and fertility in the dairy population. Direct health information may be used in the future, and already has been included in genetic evaluations for several years in the Scandinavian countries (Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østeras &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., Solbu, H., Refsdal, A. O., Roalkvan, T., Filseth, O., Minsaas, A., 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 4483-4497.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Interbull, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Interbull, 2010. Description of GES as applied in member countries. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www-interbull.slu.se/national_ges_info2/framesida-ges.htm&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions for genetic analyses must account for frequencies of health incidents, with low incidence rates requiring more records for reliable estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of breeding values. Broader and less-specific definitions of health traits may mitigate this problem, with a possible loss of selection intensity. However, obligatory plausibility checks of data must be performed as specifically as possible, and any combination of traits at a later stage must account for the pathophysiology underlying the respective health traits. Examples of trait definitions found in the literature are given together with the reported frequencies in Table 8.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many studies have shown that breeding measures based on direct health information can be successful (e.g., Amand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G. P., 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. British Cattle Conference, Shrewsbury, UK, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004b. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. II. Genetic correlations, disease probabilities and relationships with existing traits. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4295-4302.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Klemetsdal, G., Steine, T., 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 90: 2419-2426.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When using indirect health data alone or in combination with direct health data it must be remembered that the information provided by the two types of traits is not identical. For example, the genetic correlations among clinical mastitis and somatic cell count are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 depending on the definition of the indirect measure of mastitis (e.g., Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Heringstad, B., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Comparison of different models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. (in press).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Correlation estimates are lower for fertility traits, with moderately negative genetic correlation of -0.4 between early reproduction disorders and 56-day non-return-rate (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability estimates of direct health traits range from 0.01 to 0.20 and are higher when only first rather than all lactation records are used (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results from Fleckvieh and Norwegian Red indicate that heritabilities of metabolic diseases may be higher than heritabilities of udder, locomotory, and reproductive diseases (Zwald &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2004&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Zwald, N. R., Weigel, K. A., Chang, Y. M., Welper R. D., Clay, J. S., 2004a. Genetic selection for health traits using producer-recorded data. I. Incidence rates, heritability estimates and sire breeding values. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 4287-4294.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Heringstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). When comparing genetic parameter estimates, methodological differences such as the use of linear versus threshold models need to be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Existing genetic variation among sires with respect to functional traits can be used to select for improved health and longevity. Experience from the Scandinavian countries shows that genetic evaluation for direct health traits can be successfully implemented. For several disease complexes it may be advantageous to combine direct and indirect health data (e.g. Johansson &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., S. Eriksson, J. Pösö, M. Toivonen, U. S. Nielsen, J.A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2006. Genetic evaluation of udder health traits for Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 35: 92-96.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Johanssen &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J. Pöso, U. S. Nielsen, J.A.Eriksson, G.P. Aamand., 2008. Joint genetic evaluation of other disease traits in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Meeting, Interbull Bulletin 38:107-112.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Negussie &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Pritchard &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pritchard, T.C., R. Mrode, M.P. Coffey, E. Wall., 2011. Combination of test day somatic cell count and incidence of mastitis for the genetic evaluation of udder health. Interbull-Meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Pritchard.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;and Urioste &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Urioste, J.I., J. Franzén, J.J.Windig, E. Strandberg., 2011. Genetic variability of alternative somatic cell count traits and their relationship with clinical and subclinical mastitis. Interbull-meeting. Stavanger, Norway. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.interbull.org/images/stories/Urioste.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; . Accessed November 2, 2011.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al.,&#039;&#039; 2012a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012a). Alternative somatic cell count traits to improve mastitis resistance in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 95:432-439.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;,b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., F. Miglior, D. F. Kelton, and F. S. Schenkel (2012b). Health recording in Canadian Holsteins - data and genetic parameters. J. Dairy Sci. (submitted for publication). LeBlanc, S. J., Lissemore, K. D., Kelton, D. F., Duffield, T. F., Leslie, K. E., 2006. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 89:1267-1279&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Further information on already-established genetic evaluations for functional traits including considered direct and indirect health information can be found on the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/geforms).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples of national genetic evaluations (2010) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagenationalgenetic.png|center|thumb|563x563px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedescription.png|center|thumb|581x581px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 8. Lactation incidence rates (LIR), i.e. proportions of cows with at least one diagnosis of the respective disease within the specified time period.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Time period&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;(parities considered)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;LIR (%)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Reference&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Danish Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Udder diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |-10 to 100 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Nielsen et al., 2000&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Mark, T., 2000. National genetic evaluation of udder health and other traits in Denmark. Interbull Open Meeting, Bled, 2000, Interbull Bulletin 25: 143‑150.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Reproductive disturbances&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digestive and metabolic diseases&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Feet and legs disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Norwegian Red&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;19.8&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;24.2&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Heringstad et al., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Chang, Y.M., Gianola, D., Klemetsdal, G., 2005. Genetic correlations between clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis and retained placenta within and between the first three lactations of Norwegian Red (NRF). In: EAAP-Book of Abstracts No 11: 56th Annual Meeting of the EAAP, 3-4.6..2005 Uppsala, Sweden.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Milk fever&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 30 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;1.9&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;7.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ketosis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-15 to 120 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.5&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Retained placenta&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 5 days in milk&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;3.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Swedish Holstein&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.4&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;12.1&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Carlén et al., 2004&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Finnish Ayrshire&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-7 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;(1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 3&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;rd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; lactation)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.0&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;10.6&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;13.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Negussie et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Negussie, M., M. Lidauer, E.A. Mäntysaari, I. Stranden, J. Pösö, U.S. Nielsen, K. Johansson, J-A. Eriksson, G.P. Aamand. 2010. Combining test day SCS with clinical mastitis and udder type traits: a random regression model for joint genetic evaluation of udder health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bulletin 42: 25-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fleckvieh (Simmental)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Early reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0 to 30 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Late reproductive disorders&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |31 to 150 days in milk&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010a&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C., Fuerst, C., Obritzhauser, W., Fuerst-Waltl, B., 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual purpose cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 2185-2194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Brown Swiss&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-10 to 150 days in milk&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Koeck et al., 2010b&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., L. R. Schenkel, G. J. Kistner, C. Egger-Danner, and F. S. Miglior. 2010. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis and its relationship with somatic cell score and milk production in first lactation Canadian Jersey cows. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 4355-4363.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disease Codes ==&lt;br /&gt;
A full list of disease codes is available:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# On the ICAR website here - https://www.icar.org/guidelines/icar-claw-health-key/ and,&lt;br /&gt;
# Can be downloaded as an .xlsx file here - https://www.icar.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/ICAR-Claw-Health-Key-coding-20180921.xls&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result the ICAR working group on functional traits. The members of this working group at the time of the compilation of this Section were: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom; lucyandrews@holstein-uk.org &lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (Chairperson since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicholas Gengler, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium; gengler.n@fsagx.ac.be &lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorhe@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Victorian Departement of Primary Industries, Australia; jennie.pryce@dpi.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Sweden (member and chairperson till 2011); Erling.Strandberg@slu.se&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank Armitage, United Kingdom; Georgios Banos, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Greece; Ulf Emanuelson, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden; Ole Klejs Hansen, Knowledge Centre for Agriculture, Denmark and Filippo Miglior, Canadian Dairy Network, Canada and is thanked for their support and contribution. Rudolf Staufenbiel, FU Berlin, and co-workers is thanked for their contributions to standardization of health data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Female Fertility in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Technical abstract ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide people involved in keeping and breeding of dairy cattle with recommendations for recording, management and evaluation of female fertility. Aspects of bull fertility are covered by another set of ICAR guidelines ([[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 6]]), compiled by the ICAR working group for Artificial Insemination. The guidelines described here support establishing good practices for recording, data validation, genetic evaluation and management aspects of female fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish a recording scheme for female fertility the following data are desirable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# All artificial insemination dates including natural mating dates where possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Body condition score.&lt;br /&gt;
# Hormone assays. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other novel predictors of fertility, such as activity based information (pedometer), are also growing in popularity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This document includes a list of parameters for female fertility and information on recording and validating these data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
In broad terms, &amp;quot;fertility&amp;quot; is defined as the ability to produce offspring. In the dairy industry, female fertility refers to the ability of a cow to conceive and maintain pregnancy within a specific time period; where the preferred time period is determined by the particular production system in use. The relevance of certain fertility parameters may therefore differ between production systems, and evaluations of female fertility data have to account for these differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are currently significant challenges to achieving pregnancy in high yielding dairy cows. Accordingly, female fertility has received substantial attention from scientists, veterinarians, farm advisors and farmers. Culling rates due to infertility are much higher than two or three decades ago, and conception rates and calving intervals have also deteriorated. There is no doubt that selection for high yields, while placing insufficient or no emphasis on fertility, has played a role in declining rates of female fertility worldwide, because genetic correlations between production and fertility are unfavourable (e.g. Pryce &amp;amp; Veerkamp 1999&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Veerkamp R.F., 1999. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. Br. Soc. Anim;Vol 1:Occasional Mtg. Pub. 26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sun et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sun, C., Madsen, P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y, Nielsen U.S. &amp;amp; Su S., 2010. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 88:871-878.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most breeding programs have attempted to reverse this situation by estimating breeding values for fertility and including them with appropriate weightings in a multi-trait selection index for the overall breeding objective of dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most important ways that fertility can be improved, through both management strategies and getting better breeding values is by collecting high quality fertility phenotypes. Female fertility is a complex trait with a low heritability, because it is a combination of several traits which may be heterogeneous in their genetic background. For example, it is desirable to have a cow that returns to cyclicity soon after calving, shows strong signs of oestrus, has a high probability of becoming pregnant when inseminated, has no fertility disorders and the ability to keep the embryo/foetus for the entire gestation period. For heifers, the same characteristics except the first one apply. Multiple physiological functions are involved including hormone systems, defense mechanisms and metabolism, so a larger number of parameters may reflect fertility function or dysfunction. However, in initiating a data recording scheme for female fertility it is often not practical (although desirable) to encompass all aspects of good fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The obstacles that exist in adequate recording of fertility measures include: data capture i.e. handwritten notebooks versus computerized data recording and how these data link to a central database used to store data from multiple herds. Although many countries already have adequate fertility recording systems in place, the quality of data captured may still vary by herd. Many farmers are already motivated to improve fertility (as there is global awareness of the decline in dairy cow fertility over recent years). However, what is not always clearly understood is the importance of different sources of fertility data in providing tools that can be used to improve fertility performance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The principles and type of data that should be recorded are the same regardless of the production system. However, the way in which the data are used i.e. the measures of fertility may vary according to the type of production system. For this reason, we have made a distinction between seasonal and non-seasonal herds:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In seasonal systems cows calve (typically) in the spring, so that peak milk production matches peak grass growth. An alternative is autumn calving herds that use feed conserved from pasture grown in the summer months. True seasonal systems have all cows calving as a tight time frame, i.e. within 8 weeks of the planned start of calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In year-round-systems heifers calve for the first time (predominantly) at a certain age e.g. close to two years of age regardless of the month of year and calvings occur all through the year, so that the calving pattern appears to be reasonably flat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Types and sources of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Types of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving dates ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calving dates can be used to calculate the interval between consecutive calvings and to confirm previously predicted pregnancies / conceptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To consider: In order to handle bias from culling it is useful to also record culling of cows and the culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Insemination data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on inseminations can be used either alone or in combination with other data e.g. calving dates to define interval traits. Where the measure is initiated by a calving date, it can only be calculated for cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Insemination (and calving) dates can be used to calculate the following traits, those that can be measured for cows and/or heifers are indicated in brackets:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to first insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from planned start of mating to first insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Non-return rate (to first insemination or within a defined time period) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Conception rate (to any insemination).&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving rate within a time period (an individual&#039;s phenotype is 0/1) (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per lactation or insemination period (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Number of inseminations per calving or pregnancy.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from first to last insemination (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval between inseminations (cows and heifers).&lt;br /&gt;
# Interval from calving to last insemination (cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no best set of traits for evaluation of female fertility, but it is recommended to consider traits which reflect more than one aspect of fertility, e.g. interval from calving to first insemination or interval from calving to first oestrus (return to cyclicity) and non-return rate (probability of conception). For seasonal calving systems, submission rate and calving rate could be alternatives, refer to Table 9. However, calving interval (the interval between two calvings) requires the least data, only calving dates, and is often used as a first step to genetic evaluations for fertility in the absence of insemination or other fertility data. It has to be used with care as highlighted above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Fertility disorders ====&lt;br /&gt;
These data are either diagnoses related to treatments by veterinarians or observations from farmers. Details can be found above in 1.9.1 above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk production and composition data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Milk yield is correlated to fertility, and could be used as a predictor (for example in a multi-trait analysis of fertility). However, care should be taken, as the heritability of milk yield is high compared to fertility, the contribution of milk yield to the fertility breeding value could be considerable, making it difficult to identify bulls that are superior for both fertility and milk production. Results from selection based on Total Merit Indices show that it is possible to stabilize fertility if a certain weight is put on fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recent research confirmed genetic links between fertility and milk composition. In particular, changes of milk fatty acid profiles were identified (Bastin et al., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bastin, C., Soyeurt, H., Vanderick, S. &amp;amp; Gengler, N., 2011. Genetic relationships between milk fatty acids and fertility of dairy cows. Interbull Bulletin 44, 190-194.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) as useful predictors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Results of pregnancy tests and further hormone assays ====&lt;br /&gt;
Pregnancy status can be determined by veterinary diagnosis, such as uterine palpation or ultrasound or by using information from hormones or circulating peptides associated with pregnancy. The timing of this data is important and should generally be done in consultation with veterinary practitioners. Other hormones, such as progesterone can be used to to determine the post-partum onset of cyclic activity and calculate e.g. interval from calving to first luteal activity (CLA) or other similar traits. The advantage of this trait is that compared with the interval from calving to first insemination, it is not influenced by the farmer&#039;s decision of when to start inseminations. However, it may be costly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Heat strength ====&lt;br /&gt;
Physical activity increases during oestrus, in addition there are other behavioural changes, such as standing heat and mounting behaviour. These signs are used to detect oestrus and can be used to calculate traits such as interval between calving and resumption of oestrus. Tail paint (on the tail head) or colour ampoules attached to the tail head are used in some countries to aid oestrus detection. For larger herds, tail painting is used as a tool to aid insemination rather than resumption of cyclicity, however, on many farms, the decision to inseminate is often made after a defined period between calving and first insemination. In many practical situations it may be unrealistic to expect oestrus (without insemination) data to be collected, however recently there has been innovation in automating heat detection. For example, pedometers and more sophisticated activity monitors are now being used routinely on many farms as part of a management package. As cows become more active when in oestrus, the pedometer information needs to be compared to a baseline for the same cow and algorithms have been developed to interpret the data collected. The efficiency of oestrus detection rate has been reported to range between 50 and 100% depending on the criteria of success (&#039;&#039;&#039;At-Taras &amp;amp; Spahr, 2001&#039;&#039;&#039;). The gold-standard of oestrus detection are still progesterone measurements and imperfect concordance between pedometer and progesterone determined oestrus has been determined because activity monitors will not detect silent behavioural oestrus &#039;&#039;&#039;(Lovendahl &amp;amp; Chagunda, 2010)&#039;&#039;&#039;. However, clearly there is an advantage in both progesterone and activity determined oestrus as they do not require farm observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Culling data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Culling data and culling reasons are important information especially if traits referring to longer time intervals (i.e. particularly those referring to calving dates) are used. Information on cows or heifers culled because of fertility disorders are of use, especially to remove bias arising from cows disappearing from the recording system i.e. a bull can have a biased proof if a lot of his daughters are culled for infertility and this is not recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the absence of accurate culling data, a useful proxy for monitoring fertility at the herd level is the proportion of animals failing to conceive by 300 days post calving. Cows not served by 300 days most likely reflect non-fertility culls, whereas cows that have been served and fail to conceive are more likely to reflect culls as a result of failure to conceive given that the majority of involuntary culls and decisions on planned culling occur in early lactation prior to the start of the breeding season.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Metabolic stress and body condition ====&lt;br /&gt;
Metabolic stress is defined as the degree of metabolic load that distorts normal physiological function. A distortion of normal physiological function may be temporary infertility, where the metabolic load is too great for the cow to invest in reproduction (future pregnancy) when the current lactation is not sustainable. Metabolic load is reflected by the stability of energy balance, which Veerkamp et al. (2001) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. &amp;amp; De Jong, G. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2327-2335.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;suggested was related to traits such as milk yield, body condition score (BCS) and live weight (LWT).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By itself live weight is not a particularly good measure of energy balance, as tall thin cows may have weights similar to smaller cows in better condition. Therefore, BCS has been favoured as an indicator for energy balance. Cows with low BCS may have health problems, such as metritis, which may be the underlying problem for poor fertility. However, most studies worldwide have shown that BCS is a good indicator of female fertility, as cows that are mobilize body tissue may be more likely to use this energy to sustain lactation instead of invest in a pregnancy. Therefore, BCS has been found to be suitable to be incorporated into selection indexes for fertility, such as in New Zealand (Harris et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harris, B.L., Pryce, J.E. &amp;amp; Montgomerie, W.A., 2007. Experiences from breeding for economic efficiency in dairy cattle in New Zealand Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 17:434.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). BCS is sometimes measured as part of the linear type assessment in pedigree and progeny testing herds it can also be measured by the farmer. However, in some situations, use of BCS as a predictor trait for fertility has been found to be limited (Gredler et al., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gredler, B. Fuerst, C. &amp;amp; Soelkner, H., 2007. Analysis of New Fertility Traits for the Joint Genetic Evaluation in Austria and Germany. Interbull Bulletin 37, 152-155.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data ===&lt;br /&gt;
Female fertility data originates from different data sources which differ considerably with respect to information content and specificity; for example from veterinary practices, laboratories, milk recording organisations, breed associations and farms etc. Therefore, ideally, the data source should be clearly indicated whenever information on fertility status is collected and analysed. When data from different sources are combined, the origin of data must be taken into account. Regardless of the data source, it is desirable to have as few steps as possible from initial data recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Milk-recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
Initiation of lactation requires a calving date to be recorded for a cow. Calving dates are generally collected by organisations that are responsible for recording milk production, based on dates reported by the farmer, or more commonly gathered during the registration of births in countries operating mandatory birth registration systems. Calving dates are the most basic source of data available for evaluation of female fertility and can be used to determine calving intervals (defined as the number of days between two consecutive calvings).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving dates.&lt;br /&gt;
# Culling reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Covers both cyclicity and conception.&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording and therefore can be used as an easy first-step into evaluating fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Possible use of already-established data flow (reporting of calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Missing dates for cows with problems around calving that do not enter the herd for milk recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Only available for cows, not for heifers.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving interval data may be censored, as cows that are infertile are often culled before calving again. If specific culling reasons are available, then information on animals that are culled for infertility can be a very useful addition to calving interval data, as the least fertile cows (i.e. cows culled for infertility) can be distinguished from cows culled for other reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== AI organisations or producers ====&lt;br /&gt;
AI organisations and other AI operators record insemination dates and the AI sire used for the insemination. Inseminations can either be recorded in a logbook and later transferred to a computer or directly into a computer (sometimes handheld device).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Information on inseminations (date of insemination, sire/origin of semen, semen batch, inseminator e.g. technician or member of farm staff).&lt;br /&gt;
# Sexed semen, embryo transfer, straw splitting etc. should be noted.&lt;br /&gt;
# Interventions such as synchrony should also be recorded, as it is possible that this may affect analysis results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are established, data can be collected from many farms.&lt;br /&gt;
# A broad range of measures of fertility can be calculated from insemination dates (often with calving dates) see Table 1. These measures can cover conception and cyclicity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disadvantages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If logistics for collection of insemination data are not established, considerable efforts may be needed to set-up recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary, especially if there are no legal documentation requirements.&lt;br /&gt;
# In situations where farmers often use AI for a set period of time followed by natural mating to farm bulls, some mating dates will be missing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Veterinarians ====&lt;br /&gt;
Veterinarians are often involved in monitoring herd fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis or pregnancy testing is practiced and recorded by many veterinary practices to confirm a pregnancy. Uterine palpation per rectum or ultrasonography at around day 60 of conception is a valuable source of data because it is more accurate than non-return rates. Treatment for fertility disorders should also be recorded. From the economic point of view, a cow with good fertility without any treatments needed may be clearly preferred over a cow that was treated several times before it got pregnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy status.&lt;br /&gt;
# Diagnoses of fertility disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Direct information on fertility, which is not covered by calving and insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary support and training needed to ensure data quality and consistency in diagnosis and definitions.&lt;br /&gt;
# Completeness of recording may vary depending on work peaks on the farm.&lt;br /&gt;
# Accurate animal identification may be an issue, as the data may be used (by the veterinary practice) to assess herd-level fertility rather than individual cow fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
# Data on pregnancy diagnosis may only be available for a subset of the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== On-farm computer software ====&lt;br /&gt;
Multiple herd management software packages are available for dairy farmers to record their own data. Some of this software interacts with the milk-recording organisations via standard interfaces, i.e. there are automatic exchanges of data between the central database and the computer on the farm. Farmers can enter calving, insemination, culling and pregnancy test information themselves. For genetic evaluation purposes, it is important that all the data is entered. Information on natural matings (if applicable) should also be recorded where possible and practical, which may not be the case for very large herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Content&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Insemination data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Calving data.&lt;br /&gt;
# Pregnancy test results.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Advantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# No additional effort for recording.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Disadvantages&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Very often only software solutions within farm, difficulties of standardized export of data, although many software packages ensure data exchange with the genetic evaluation unit is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
# Trait definitions may differ between systems, requiring source-specific data handling.&lt;br /&gt;
# Incompleteness of insemination data, for example in some cases only the last successful insemination may be recorded for management purposes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data security ==&lt;br /&gt;
Data security is a universally important issue when collecting and using field data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The legal framework for use of fertility data has to be considered according to national requirements and data privacy standards. The owner of the farm on which the data are recorded is the owner of the data, and must enter into formal agreements before data are collected, transferred, or analysed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Documentation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Documentation is the precondition of use of fertility data for management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pre-requisite information:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification of both the cow and service sire.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# Ancestry or pedigree information (at the very least the cow&#039;s sire should be recorded).&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A central database (Often data is recorded on the farm&#039;s computer(s) and then uploaded to the milk recording agency who then transfer the data to a central database. Alternatively, data can exchange directly between the farm computer and the central database).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Useful additional documentation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual identification of the recording person.&lt;br /&gt;
# Details on respective fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# Artificial insemination or natural service.&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of semen used (e.g. sexed semen, fresh semen).&lt;br /&gt;
# Type of recording and method of data transfer (software used for on-farm recording, online-transmission).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The systematic use and appropriate interpretation of fertility data requires that different types of information can be combined such as date of birth, sex, breed, sire and dam, farm/herd; calving dates, and performance records. Therefore, unique identification of the individual animals used for the fertility database must be consistent with the animal ID used in existing databases (for more details see the &amp;quot;ICAR rules, standards and guidelines on methods of identification&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data that can be used to calculate female fertility measures can originate from a number of sources including farm software, milk-recording organisations, veterinarians, breed societies and laboratories. Ideally, as much data as possible should be recorded electronically, as this reduces transcription errors. As long as data is as error free as possible, the origin of data is less important. However, it is preferable for data to be transferred to a central database in as few steps as possible and as quickly as possible. Genetic evaluation of young bulls relies on early information on fertility being available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording of female fertility ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision support for recording fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In setting up a recording scheme or using data for genetic evaluation of fertility, the data that is currently captured needs to be considered in addition to implementing strategies for including other data. For example, calving dates and consequently calving interval, is the most basic measure of fertility. Then, insemination dates can be added, to calculate interval traits and non-return rates. Ideally, pregnancy test results should also be recorded as these can be used as early indicators of conception. Finally, or in some cases alternatively, other predictors, such as fertility disorders, type traits, culling reasons and measures derived from hormones assays can also be added.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Image FT Figure1.png|center|thumb|429x429px|&#039;&#039;Figure 1. A flow chart describing the possible steps in developing a recording program for female fertility.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If only data from a milk recording organisation is available, then calving interval can be measured as the interval between 2 successive calvings.&lt;br /&gt;
# If insemination data is available then days to first service (DFS), non-return (NR), number of services per conception (SPC), first to last service interval (FLI), calving to last insemination (CLI), days open (DOP) can be measured. Conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating and presented for mating within 21 days of the planned start of mating are measures suitable for seasonal systems and require a day when inseminations were started in the breeding season to be identified. Similarly first service submission can be used if a voluntary wait period is defined.&lt;br /&gt;
# If information about fertility disorders (diagnoses) are available, the information about cows with e.g. cystic ovaries, silent heat, metritis, retained placenta or puerperal diagnoses can be included in an fertility index.&lt;br /&gt;
# If pregnancy test/diagnosis data is available, then conception or pregnancy to the first (or second) insemination can be calculated, or in seasonal systems, conception within 42 days of the planned start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
# If type data is recorded regularly across parities, body condition score (a measure of fatness and metabolic status) can be evaluated. The limitation with condition score as part of a type classification scheme is that it is generally only recorded once, often on only selected cows, and therefore its usefulness may be limited.&lt;br /&gt;
# If there are research herds or dedicated nucleus herds available, then commencement of luteal activity can be measured on a subset of animals (reference population). If these animals are also genotyped, then a genomic prediction equation can be calculated that can be applied to animals with genotypes but not phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data quality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General aspects ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording program.&lt;br /&gt;
# If herds were selected how was this done?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were the people involved in recording (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardized recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs were used? - What type of equipment was used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there any selection of animals within herds? Consistency, completeness and timeliness of the recording and representativeness of the data compared to the national population is of utmost importance. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the data; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General quality checks ===&lt;br /&gt;
National evaluation centers are encouraged to devise simple methods to check for logical inconsistencies in the data. Examples of data checks include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The recording farm must be registered or have a valid herd-testing identification.&lt;br /&gt;
# The animal must be registered to the respective farm at the time of the fertility event.&lt;br /&gt;
# The date of the fertility event must refer to a living animal (must occur between the birth and culling dates), and may not be in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
# A particular insemination must be plausible. For example are the insemination dates impossible? (e.g. before the calving or birth date)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Continuity of data flow. Keys to long-term success ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of the sources of fertility data included, long-term acceptance of the recording system and success of the fertility improvement program will rely on the sustained motivation of all parties involved. Quantifying the benefits of data recording of these data is important. For example, data can be useful information for herd management, but also genetic evaluation and integration of these traits into selection programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
Refer to Table 9.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving interval ===&lt;br /&gt;
Calving interval is the number of days between two consecutive calvings. Calving interval covers both return to cyclicity and conception, however its main disadvantage is that it is sometimes biased because cows with the worst fertility are often culled early and hence do not re-calve. Calving interval is also available later than many other measures of fertility, so is not as useful for selection decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Days Open ===&lt;br /&gt;
Days open is the interval between calving and the last insemination date. It is similar to calving interval provided the cow conceives to the last insemination, in which case days open is calving interval minus the gestation length. The USA currently calculates daughter pregnancy rate as 21/(Days Open - voluntary waiting period + 11). The voluntary waiting period is the period after calving that a farmer deliberately does not inseminate the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Non-return rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Non-return rate is a binary measure of whether a new mating or insemination event occurs after the first insemination within a time period. Frequently studied intervals are 28 days (NR28), 56 days (NR56) or 90 days (NR90). The reference period recommended by Interbull is 56 days. This trait can be evaluated for both heifers and cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval from calving to first insemination ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between calving and first insemination is sometimes influenced by management aspects and this needs to be considered in fertility evaluations. However, it does provide a measure of return to cyclicity post-calving. However, it does not provide information on conception (Table 9).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interval between 1st insemination and conception ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of days between first insemination and positive pregnancy diagnosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conception rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
Success or failure to conceive after each AI (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Calving rate, e.g. 42 or 56 days, from planned start of calving (seasonal systems) ===&lt;br /&gt;
The binary measure of whether a cow returns 42 or 56 days from the herd&#039;s planned start of mating. It is generally confirmed by the presence of a subsequent calving date. A herd&#039;s planned start of mating is when artificial inseminations for the herd commence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Number of inseminations per series ===&lt;br /&gt;
The number of inseminations in a lactation or within a certain time period (this can be evaluated for heifers and cows).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Heat strength ===&lt;br /&gt;
A subjective scale is often used for recording of heat strength. This scale could be divided in different ways and could have various numbers of classes, but the classes should be ordered in intensity. As an example, the Swedish system has a five-point scale (very weak, weak, clear signs, strong, very strong heat signs) where each point is described in more detail regarding physical signs of the vulva and mounting/being mounted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Submission rate ===&lt;br /&gt;
The percentage of cows mated in a fixed number of days after the herd&#039;s start of mating. On an individual cow basis, recording is a binary score i.e. AI&#039;d within a period of days from the herd&#039;s start of mating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fertility disorders - treatments for fertility disorders ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on specific fertility disorders can provide valuable information for evaluation of female fertility. Recording details can be found in the ICAR Health guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Body condition score ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Body Condition Score (BCS) measures the fatness of the cow, especially in the region of the loin, hip, pinbone, and tailhead areas. Change in BCS in early lactation may be a better indicator of fertility compared with single observations of BCS per parity. To consider change in BCS it has to be recorded at least twice in early lactation and requires the dates of measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Overview over traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
For monitoring the health status of dairy cows, an assessment of fertility is also useful to ensure that a complete picture of the health of the herd is available. For more information see the ICAR Health Guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 9. Various traits used or possible to use and their potential relation to various aspects of cow fertility.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ref.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Aspect&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Return to cyclicity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Oestrus signs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Prob. of conception&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Ability to keep embryo&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Seasonal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Yearly&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between two consecutive calvings (calving interval)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Days open, interval from calving to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-return rate (56, 128, .. days)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from first ins. to conception (or last insemination)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Conception to 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination (determined with pregnancy diagnosis)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Calving rate (e.g. 42 or 56 days) from planned start of calving&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Number of ins. per series&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heat strength&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Treatments for fertility problems&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Body condition score, live weight change during early lact., energy balance&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Submission rate: e.g., interval from planned start of mating to first insemination&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval from calving to first luteal activity&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;++&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interval between inseminations&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |(+)&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of + indicates how well the measure relates to the aspect of fertility&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
? indicates the suitability of the measure to the production system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Improvement of management (individual farm level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus mainly on evaluation of female fertility for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of fertility data allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Farmers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Optimised herd management is important for financially successful farming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per individual animal or about cohorts and distinguish between retrospective &amp;quot;outputs&amp;quot; such as calving index and &amp;quot;inputs&amp;quot; such as number of services, results of pregnancy diagnosis in order to analyze overall performance (Breen et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, for short term decisions (e.g. whether to continue to inseminate or not) on-farm recording of fertility is probably the only practical solution. More sophisticated decision support may include correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis. Fertility reports summarizing the fertility performance of age-groups within the dairy herd also allows farmers to benchmark their farm to others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Timely availability of fertility information is valuable and supplements routine performance recording for optimised fertility management of the herd. Therefore, fertility data statistics should be added to existing farm reports provided by milk recording organisations. Examples from Austria are found in the Austrian Ministry of Health (2010).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Immediate reactions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is important that farmers and veterinarians have quick and easy access to herd fertility data. Only then can acute fertility problems, which may be related to management, be detected and addressed promptly. An Internet-based tool may be very helpful for timely recording and access to data. Lists of actions with animals ready to be inseminated or pregnancy tested are helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Long term adjustments&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Less-detailed reports summarizing data over longer time periods (e.g., one year) may be compiled to provide an overview of the general fertility status of the herd. Such summary reports will facilitate monitoring of developments within farm over time, as well as comparisons among farms on district and/or province level (Breen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, J.E., Hudson, C.D., Bradley, A.J. &amp;amp; Green, M.J., 2009. Monitoring dairy herd fertility performance in the modern production animal practice. British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) Congress, Southport, November 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Austrian Ministry of Health, 2010. Kundmachung des TGD-Programms Gesundheitsmonitoring Rind. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Tiergesundheit/Rechtsvorschriften/Kundmachungen/Kundmachung_des_TGD_Programms_Gesundheitsmonitoring_Rind&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Publication of key figures on female fertility at herd level will provide decision support at the tactical level. A general recommendation is to present recent averages (last year), but also to present trend over several years. If available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average days open might be compared with the average days open for all farms in the same region or with the same milk production level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different groups of animals at the farm. For example, days open might be presented as an average for first lactation cows versus later parity animals. This denotes which groups require specific attention in the preventive management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of benchmarks are valuable, and for improvement of the general fertility status it is important to place target oriented measures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring of the health status (population level) ===&lt;br /&gt;
Government bodies and other organisations involved in animal health issues are very interested in monitoring the health status of the cattle population. Consumers also are increasingly concerned about aspects of food safety and animal welfare. Regardless of which sources of health information are used, national monitoring programs may be developed to meet the demands of authorities, consumers and producers. The latter may particularly benefit from increased consumer confidence in safe and responsible food production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fertility data is also important for providing genetic evaluations, both within country and between countries. The following section is from the Interbull website (http://www.interbull.org/ib/idea_trait_codes) and are the traits that the Interbull Steering committee chose in August 2007 to become part of MACE evaluations of fertility. Interbull considers female fertility traits classified as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# T1 (HC): Maiden (H)eifer&#039;s ability to (C)onceive. A measure of confirmed conception, such as conception rate (CR), will be considered for this trait group. In the absence of confirmed conception an alternative measure, such as interval first-last insemination (FL), interval first insemination-conception (FC), number of inseminations (NI), or non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T2 (CR): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to (R)ecycle after calving. The interval calving-first insemination (CF) is an example for this ability. In the absence of such a trait, a measure of the interval calving-conception, such as days open (DO) or calving interval (CI) can be submitted.&lt;br /&gt;
# T3 (C1): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (1), expressed as a rate trait. Traits like conception rate (CR) and non-return rate (NR, preferably NR56) will be considered for this trait group.&lt;br /&gt;
# T4 (C2): Lactating (C)ow&#039;s ability to conceive (2), expressed as an interval trait. The interval first insemination-conception (FC) or interval first-last insemination (FL) will be considered for this trait group. As an alternative, number of inseminations (NI) can be submitted. In the absence of any of these traits, a measure of interval calving-conception such as days open (DO), or calving interval (CI) can be submitted. All countries are expected to submit data for this trait group, and as a last resort the trait submitted under T3 can be submitted for T4 as well.&lt;br /&gt;
# T5 (IT): Lactating cow&#039;s measurements of (I)nterval (T)raits calving-conception, such as days open (DO) and calving interval (CI).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the above trait definitions the following traits have been submitted for international genetic evaluation of female fertility traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgments ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group. The members of this working group are, in alphabetical order:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Lucy Andrews, Holstein UK, Scotsbridge House Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 3BB United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA.&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; (Chairperson of the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group since 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium.&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria Research, Victoria, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
# Katharina Stock, VIT, Germany.&lt;br /&gt;
# Erling Strandberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support in improving this document of Brian Wickham (ICAR) and Pavel Bucek (Czech-Moravian Breeders&#039; Corporation), Stephanie Minery (Idele, France), Pascal Salvetti (UNCEIA), Oscar Gonzalez-Recio and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam (DEPI, Melbourne, Australia) and John Morton (Jemora, Geelong, Australia).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Udder health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General concepts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instructions ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are written in a schematic way. Enumeration is bulleted and important information is shown in text boxes. Important words are printed &#039;&#039;&#039;bold&#039;&#039;&#039; in the text. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of these guidelines is to provide dairy cattle breeders involved in breeding programmes with a stepwise decision-support procedure establishing good practices in recording and evaluation of udder health (and correlated traits). These guidelines are prepared such that they can be useful both when a first start to the breeding programme is to be made, or when an existing breeding programme is to be updated. In addition, these guidelines supply basic information for breeders not familiar (inexperienced or ‘lay-persons’) with (biological and genetic) backgrounds of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Aim of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
Stepwise decision-support in developing a recording and evaluation system for udder health, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to support a genetic improvement scheme in dairy cattle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Structure of these guidelines ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are divided in four parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# General introduction including a summary of the main principles.&lt;br /&gt;
# Background information on udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for recording udder health and correlated traits.&lt;br /&gt;
# Stepwise decision-support for genetic evaluation of udder health and correlated traits. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The experienced animal breeder using these guidelines should read chapter 1 and is advised to read the text boxes of section 3.4 below. The inexperienced user is advised to read the full text of section 3.4 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
A healthy udder can be best defined as an udder that is ‘free from mastitis’. Mastitis is an inflammatory response, generally presumed to be caused by a bacterium. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|A  healthy udder is an udder free from inflammatory responses to microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis&#039;&#039;&#039; is generally considered as the &#039;&#039;&#039;most costly&#039;&#039;&#039; disease in dairy cattle because of its high incidence and its physiological effects on e.g. milk production. In many countries breeding for a better production in dairy cattle has been practised for years already. This selection for highly productive dairy cows has been successful. However, together with a production increase, generally udder health has become worse. Production traits are unfavourably correlated with subclinical and clinical mastitis incidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A decreased udder health is an unfavourable phenomenon, because of several costs of mastitis like e.g. veterinary treatment, loss in milk production and untimely involuntary culling. Mastitis also implies impaired animal welfare.It is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|It  is important to reduce the incidence of mastitis, because of production  efficiency and animal welfare&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little hope that mastitis will be eradicated or an effective vaccine developed. The disease is much too complex. However, reducing the incidence of this disease is possible. An important component in reducing the incidence of mastitis is breeding for a better resistance. Dairy cattle breeding should properly &#039;&#039;&#039;balanced selection&#039;&#039;&#039; emphasis on production traits (milk and beef) and functional traits (such as fertility, workability, health, longevity, feed efficiency). This requires good practices for recording and evaluation of all traits - see table for an overview. These guidelines support establishing good practices for recording and evaluation of udder health. Decision-support for other trait groups will be subject of other guidelines developed by the ICAR working group on Functional Traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Operational situation breeding value prediction to be aimed for in dairy cattle genetic improvement schemes (source Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in cattle (GIFT) - breeding goals and selection schemes (7-9 November 1999, Wageningen, the Netherlands). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 10. Breeding goal trait for which predicted breeding values should be available on potential selection candidates.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait group&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;th style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk/carrier kg&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fat kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Protein kg or %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk quality&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;e.g., κ-casein&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beef production&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Daily gain/final weight&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dressing or Retail %&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Muscularity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Fatness, marbling&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Calving ease&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Direct effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parity split&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Maternal effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Still birth&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder health&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Udder conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;a.o. Udder depth, teat placement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Somatic Cell Score&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Female Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Non-return rate&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Age 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; calving, heat detectability, luteal activity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Interval Calving – 1&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;st&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; insemination&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Male Fertility&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Feet and legs problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Conformation&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Foot angle, Rear legs set&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Locomotion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Clinical incidence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Workability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Milk speed, ability, leakage&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Temperament/Character&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Longevity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Functional, residual&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Other diseases&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ketosis, metabolic problems&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Persistency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Metabolic stress/Feed efficiency&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mature weight&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Feed intake capacity&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Condition Score&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Energy Balance&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Selection on udder health starts with recording. Only by recording it is possible to differentiate in (predicted) breeding values for udder health between potential selection candidates. Mastitis can be recorded &#039;&#039;&#039;directly&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;indirectly&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Directly recorded mastitis is for example the number of clinical mastitis incidents per cow per lactation. The same can be done with subclinical mastitis, but this is mostly put on a par with recording of somatic cell count. Other traits for indirectly recording mastitis are milkability and udder conformation traits (e.g. udder depth, fore udder attachment, teat length). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 11. Recording udder health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Direct&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Indirect&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Clinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Somatic cell count&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot;|Subclinical mastitis incidents&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Milkability&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Udder conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis is an outer visual or perceptible sign of an inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder. The inflammatory response can also be recognised by abnormal milk, or a general illness of the cow, with fever. Sub-clinical mastitis is also an inflammatory response of the udder, but without outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. An incident of sub-clinical mastitis is detectable with indicators like conductivity of the milk, NAG-ase, cytokines and somatic cell count in the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisites ==&lt;br /&gt;
Recording and evaluation of udder health requires measuring direct and indirect traits, but also basic information is necessary. With an existing breeding programme to be updated with udder health, this prerequisite information is generally available, which might not be the case when starting with a new breeding programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prerequisite information ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The recorded data from different farms should be combined to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation of potential selection candidates in the genetic improvement scheme (per region, country or internationally). A genetic evaluation requires data to be recorded in a uniform manner. There should be ample data for reliable breeding value estimation. The quality of genetic improvement depends on the quality of these estimated breeding values. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the basis of the estimated breeding values, selection candidates will be ranked. Estimated breeding values will be available per (recorded) trait, or as a combined ‘udder health index’. Such an &#039;&#039;&#039;udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039; will be a weighted summation of estimated breeding values for recorded (direct and indirect) traits. A ranking of selection candidates on an udder health index facilitates a selection on those animals that contribute mostly to improve udder health, i.e., reduced mastitis incidence. Together with indexes for other important trait groups, the udder health index can be combined towards a broader, general merit or performance index used for overall ranking of selection candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in the Netherlands ===&lt;br /&gt;
The table below (Table 12) shows the top 10 of bulls marketed world-wide with the highest estimated breeding value (EBV) for udder health (May 2002). This is on the basis of the calculations of the national Dutch organisation for cattle breeding (NVO). The formula below shows the calculation of the breeding values for udder health:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 4. Example of calculation of the breeding values for udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; = -6.603 x EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 0.193 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) + 0.173 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100)+ 0.065 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;fua&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 100) – 0.108 x (EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; -100) +100&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;UH&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder health, EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;SCC&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for somatic cell count at &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;log‑scale; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ms&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for milking speed; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;ud&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for udder depth: EBV for fore udder attachment; EBV&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;tl&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; : EBV for teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Durable Performance Sum (DPS) is the Dutch basis for the overall ranking of bulls. The components of the DPS are production, health and durability. The Total Score is the total score of the conformation of the bulls. The components for this trait are type, udder conformation and feet &amp;amp; legs.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 12. Top ten bulls ranked for udder health (May 2002).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Durable performance sum&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Total score&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;conformation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder health index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Suntor magic&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|52&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Carol prelude mtoto et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|217&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Wranada king arthur&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|97&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|109&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Caernarvon thor judson-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|107&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Mar-gar choice salem-et *tl&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|65&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prater&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ramos&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|192&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ds-kirbyville morgan-et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|165&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|108&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Whittail valley zest et&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|158&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|104&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|V centa&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|129&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|112&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|110&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Example sire evaluation in Sweden ===&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated breeding values for Swedish bulls for production, health and other functional Traits, sorted on mastitis (February 2002).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Total Merit Index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production index&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Production traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Protein (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fat (kg)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Daily gain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |114&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |113&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Brattbacka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |109&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stensjö-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |118&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |117&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |123&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Health traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Dau. fert.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calvings&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Mast. Resist.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Other diseases&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Longevity&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;MGS&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |95&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |119&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |115&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |106&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Name bull&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Functional traits&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stature&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Legs&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Milk speed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Tempr&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |111&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |89&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |102&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |G Ross&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Botans&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Stöpafors&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |108&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Inlag-ET&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |101&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |98&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Torpane&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |103&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flaka&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |97&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |99&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |104&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |92&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |96&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bredåker&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |94&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |100&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |110&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |107&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detailed information on udder health ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter (3.9) gives background information on udder health and correlated traits. It is about direct (clinical mastitis) and indirect traits (somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits). For the experienced reader reading only the bold printed words and text boxes should be sufficient. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infection and defence ===&lt;br /&gt;
The first line of defence against an infection of microorganisms is the &#039;&#039;&#039;mechanical prevention&#039;&#039;&#039; of the mammary gland. This mechanical prevention is opposite to the ease of microorganisms to enter the teat canal: the easier the entrance, the weaker the mechanical prevention. The quality of this defence is related to the &#039;&#039;&#039;milkability&#039;&#039;&#039; and the &#039;&#039;&#039;udder conformation&#039;&#039;&#039; traits, like e.g. teat length and udder depth. However, when microorganisms enter the mammary gland, then the &#039;&#039;&#039;immune system&#039;&#039;&#039; causes an attraction of leukocytes to the place of infection, which results in an enlarged &#039;&#039;&#039;somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;. So, a short-term increase in somatic cell count with or without accompanying clinical signs are on one hand a symptom of a failing first line of defence, but on the other hand indicating an appropriate immunological reaction. The picture below (Figure 2) shows the infection process, together with the destruction of a milk-secreting cell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Infectionprocess.png|center|thumb|487x487px|&#039;&#039;Figure 2. Infection process.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Mastitis  causing bacteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contagious  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - primary source: udders of  infected cows,&lt;br /&gt;
# - is spread to other cows  primarily at milking time,&lt;br /&gt;
# - results in high bulk tank  SCC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Streptococcus agalactiae (&amp;gt; 40% of all  infections),&lt;br /&gt;
# Staphylococcus aureus (30 - 40% of all  infections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The S. aureus bacterium is hardly  eradicable, but can be reduced to less than 5% of the cows in a herd. The S. agalactiae  is fully  eradicable from a herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmental  mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Primary source: the  environment of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
# High rate of clinical  mastitis (especially the lower resistant cows, e.g. Early lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual scc is not  necessarily high (less than 300,000 is possible) .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is caused by:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# - environmental steptococci (5 - 10%  of all infections).&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus uberis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus bovis.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Streptococcus  dysgalactiae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus faecium.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Enterococcus  faecalis.&lt;br /&gt;
# - Coliforms (&amp;lt; 1% of all  infections):&lt;br /&gt;
#* Escherichia coli.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella  pneumoniae.&lt;br /&gt;
#* Klebsiella oxytoca.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Clinical and subclinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis can be subdivided in clinical and subclinical mastitis. Clinical mastitis is mastitis with outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder or the milk. Clinical mastitis is observed as abnormal milk, like flaky, clotted and / or “watery” milk. Possible perceptible signs on the udder are redness, painfulness and swollenness with fever. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subclinical mastitis is not perceptible directly by a farmer or veterinarian, but is detectable with indicators. The most used indicator is the number of somatic cells per ml milk (somatic cell count). Other, less practised physiological indicators of subclinical mastitis are electrical conductivity of the milk, N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase, bovine serum albumin, antitrypsin, sodium, potassium and lactose content. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagep.png|center|thumb|447x447px|&#039;&#039;Figure 3. Daily somatic cell count with a clinical mastitis event at day 28 &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1996).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The somatic cell count is the most widely accepted criterion for indicating the udder health status of a dairy herd. An enlarged number of somatic cells in milk, which is unfavourable, points to a &#039;&#039;&#039;defence reaction&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cells in milk are primarily leukocytes or white blood cells along with sloughed epithelial or milk secreting cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;White blood cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are present in milk in response to tissue damage and/or clinical and subclinical mastitis infections. These cell numbers increase in milk as the cow’s immune system works to repair damaged tissues and combat mastitis-causing organisms. As the degree of damage or the severity of infections increase, so does the level of white blood cells. &#039;&#039;&#039;Epithelial cells&#039;&#039;&#039; are always present in milk at low levels. They are there as a result of a natural process inside the udder whereby new cells automatically replace old tissue cells. Epithelial cells result in normal milk SCC levels of &amp;lt;50,000. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The recommended industry standard for bulk SCC on delivery is one that is consistently &amp;lt;200,000. Many herds, which are successful in maintaining a herd SCC &amp;lt;100,000, have minimal to no mastitis infections. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|The somatic cell count is the  number of somatic cells per millilitre of milk. Normal milk has less than  200,000 cells per millilitre.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So, somatic cells are partly white blood cells or &#039;&#039;&#039;body defence cells&#039;&#039;&#039; whose primary functions are to eliminate infections and repair tissue damage. Somatic cell levels or numbers in the mammary gland do not reflect the whole pool of cells that can be recruited from the blood to fight infections. Somatic cells are sent in high numbers only when and where they are needed. Therefore, high SCC indicates mammary infection. A certain number of cells is necessary once an infection invades the udder. Together with a favourite low SCC, the &#039;&#039;&#039;speed of cell recruitment&#039;&#039;&#039; to the mammary gland and the cell competency are the major factors in infection prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Aspects of recording clinical and sub-clinical mastitis ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recording clinical mastitis is possible but not common practice (yet). Scandinavian countries are the only countries that include mastitis incidence directly in their national recording and evaluation programs. However, other countries are working on a national recording and evaluation scheme for mastitis incidence as well. Reasons for increased interest in recording clinical mastitis are in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Veterinary farm management support (i.e., identification of diseased animals and establishing treatment procedure).&lt;br /&gt;
# National veterinary policy-making (i.e., drugs regulations and preventive epidemiological measures).&lt;br /&gt;
# Citizens’ and consumers’ concerns about animal health and welfare and product quality and safety (i.e., chain management, product labelling).&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic improvement (i.e., monitoring genetic level of the population and selection and mating strategies).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is to be emphasised that recording of clinical mastitis is difficult, as it requires a clear definition (as given in these guidelines), an accurate administration with for example dates of incidence and (unique) cow numbers. It is also important that the reasons for recording are made clear to stakeholders and that information is not only gathered centrally, but also processed to obtain clear information for farm management support to be reported back to the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The (phenotypic) occurrence of clinical or subclinical mastitis is influenced by the genetic merit of the animal (its breeding value) and by environmental effects. When considering the total phenotypic variance between animals, for clinical mastitis about 2-5 % is because of genetic differences between the animals. The remaining differences between animals are because of different environmental influences and measuring errors. Known systematic environmental influences are for example in parity of the cow or stage in lactation. An evaluation of udder health traits will have to carefully consider these systematic environmental influences. &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;On-farm management decision-support&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although these guidelines focus on evaluation of  udder health for genetic improvement, information is also very useful for  on-farm decision-support. Routinely recording of clinical incidents and  somatic cell count allows the presentation of key figures for veterinary herd  management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Operational - individual animal level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Results of recording can be presented per  individual animal. To support decision making, a note can accompany the  presentation of the recording level when the level is above a certain  threshold. For example, a SCC above 200,000 indicates that the cow may suffer  from subclinical mastitis and requires treatment or it is advised to perform  a bacteriological culturing. An additional listing might provide a direct  overview of cows with attention levels for which further action is advised.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More sophisticated decision support may include  correction of the observed level for systematic environmental effects (such  as parity or stage in lactation) and time analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mastitis caused by different bacteria requires  different preventive and curative measurements to be taken. Therefore,  information from bacteriological culturing is generally very important in  operational farm management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Tactical - herd level&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Publication of key figures on mastitis incidence,  bacteriological culturing and SCC at herd level will provide decision support  at the tactical term. A general recommendation is to present recent averages,  but also to present the course of the averages over a longer time period. If  available, it is advised to include a comparison of the averages with a mean  of a larger group of (similar) farms. For example, the average on SCC might  be compared with the average bulk somatic cell count for all farms delivering  milk to the same factory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Farm averages might also be specified for different  groups of animals at the farm. For example, SCC might be presented as an  average for first lactation females versus later parity animals. This denotes  which groups require specific attention in the preventive and curative  management.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Health card ====&lt;br /&gt;
In Norway, Finland and Denmark each individual cow has a health card, which is updated each time the veterinarian treats the animal. For example in Norway is a strict regulation of drugs such that all antibiotic treatments are carried out by the veterinary, and the farmer is not allowed treating his own animals. Completeness and consistency requires a very accurate administration; a condition in order to let a health card system be useful for breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Quality control ====&lt;br /&gt;
In the Netherlands, it is now included in the ‘chain control on quality of milk’ that the farm is regularly visited by a veterinarian to record health status of the cows. This gives a ‘test-day’ comparison of all cows in the herd. This information can possibly be used for national veterinarian monitoring programmes and for selection programmes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many countries a reliable recording of clinical mastitis incidents is hard to achieve, which makes this trait not the first step in developing an udder health index. Somatic cell count (SCC) is genetically highly correlated with clinical mastitis: 0.60-0.70. This means, that when analysing field data, an observed high level of SCC is generally accompanied by a clinical mastitis event. In other words, although milk of healthy cows also shows variance in SCC, in day-to-day field data, most of the variance in SCC is caused by clinical mastitis events. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given its high correlation to clinical mastitis, SCC is an appropriate indicator of udder health, as&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Somatic cell counts can be routinely recorded in most milk recording systems, giving better opportunities of accurate, complete and standardised observations.&lt;br /&gt;
# About 10-15% of the observed variation in scc is caused by differences in breeding values of the animals, which is higher than in clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
# It also reflects incidence of subclinical intramammary infections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Bulk  somatic cell count&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far, we have considered SCC  on animal level. In farm management also the average bulk somatic cell count  (BSCC) is of interest. In many countries the BSCC is a basis for milk price  payment by the dairy industry. The BSCC can also play a role in decision-support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High BSCC herds mainly deal with high  levels of contagious, invasive organisms, which are mostly subclinical. Many  cows are infected and substantial udder damage and milk losses are caused.  When these infections become clinical, they are usually mild. Environmental  infections are rarely seen because they are opportunists and can not compete  with the highly invasive organisms. Low SCC herds have low levels of  contagious, invasive pathogens. Thus, when they do have infections, they are  usually environmental. Environmental infections are very vivid, with a severe  illness and a possible death as a result. Environmental infections are not  invasive, but opportunistic, thus most animals who get these are usually  suppressed or heavily stressed, e.g. early lactation animals. A good  management from the farmer can reduce the number of environmental infections.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure4.png|center|thumb|465x465px|&#039;&#039;Figure 4. The upper 95% confidence limit for somatic cell counts in uninfected cows, in three different parities, in dependance on days in milk &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers et al., 1997).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure6.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 5. Frequency distribution of clinical mastitis incidents according to lactation stage &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Schepers, 1986).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure 7.png|center|thumb|469x469px|&#039;&#039;Figure 6. Percentage of cows of different SCC-classes (x 1.000; year 2.000 calvings, Australia) per lactation &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Hiemstra, 2001).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Relevance or lowering SCC ===&lt;br /&gt;
The importance of reducing clinical mastitis seems clear (high costs and impaired welfare), the importance of reducing subclinical mastitis might seem less obvious. However, there are &#039;&#039;&#039;several reasons&#039;&#039;&#039; for reducing the amount of subclinical mastitis (an increased number of somatic cells in milk (SCC)) in dairy cattle, like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Daughters of sires that transmit the lowest somatic cell score (log-transformation of somatic cell count) have lower incidence of clinical mastitis and fewer clinical episodes during first and second lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Decreased somatic cell count (SCC) has been shown to improve dairy product quality, shelf life and cheese yield. Increased SCC decreases cheese yield in two ways:&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the amount of casein as a percentage of total protein in milk.&lt;br /&gt;
#* By decreasing the efficiency of conversion of casein into cheese.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC in milk affects the price of milk in many payment systems that are based on milk quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# High SCC milk has a reduced flavour score because of an increase in salts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Advantages of lowering somatic cell count ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis: low incidence and few episodes.&lt;br /&gt;
# Improved dairy product quality.&lt;br /&gt;
# Higher milk prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Natural defence system ====&lt;br /&gt;
Part of the somatic cells is white blood cells - they are an essential part of the cow&#039;s immune system. Trying to lower the incidence of cases with highly increased somatic cell count (as an indicator that a defence reaction was necessary) is advised. Trying to lower somatic cell count below natural levels in milk of healthy cows is not advised. An essential part of the natural defence system is also the speed of white blood cells recruitment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Milkability ===&lt;br /&gt;
There is an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (milking speed, milking ease or milk flow) and somatic cell count. Faster milking cows tend to have a higher lactation somatic cell count. In general, an unfavourable genetic correlation between milkability (i.e., milking speed) and udder health is assumed. This is explained by a possibly &#039;&#039;&#039;easier mechanical entry of pathogens&#039;&#039;&#039; into the udder associated with an easier exit of milk out of the udder ant teat canal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, some remarks are to be made with respect to this correlation between milkability and udder health. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Non-linearity ====&lt;br /&gt;
The genetic correlation is assumed to be non-linear. This means that at low and mediate levels of milking speed there is no influence on udder health. Only with extremely high milking speed, also observed as leakage of milk before milking time, the teat canal is too wide facilitating easy entrance of microorganisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve (Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagedigur7.png|center|thumb|474x474px|&#039;&#039;Figure 7. A generalised representation of the milk low curve &#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Dodenhoff et al., 2000).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Complete draining with milking. ====&lt;br /&gt;
With each milking, the last fraction of milk contains 3 to 10 times more cells than the first fraction. This however depends on the completeness of withdrawing milk from the udder, which itself is again related to milking speed. A higher milking speed, facilitates a more complete draining of the udder causing a higher SCC. This supports the suggestion that milking speed is unfavourably correlated with SCC but not with clinical mastitis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another important point is that milking speed is associated with &#039;&#039;&#039;the farmer’s labour time&#039;&#039;&#039; for milking. Increased milking speed per cow implies decreased costs for electrical power and decreased wear on milking equipment. Combining the two main aspects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Reducing milking speed, or more specifically leakage as wanted because of udder health.&lt;br /&gt;
# Increasing milking speed because of reducing labour time&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
makes that milking speed is a trait with an intermediate, &#039;&#039;&#039;optimum level&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of milking speed can be practised with advanced equipment. This advanced equipment can be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# An additional equipment to be installed at regular intervals or at specific recording herds as part of a (national) recording programme for milking speed, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An integral part of the milking system at the farm, together with for example recording of milk conductivity, giving an integral, operational decision-support for the farmer in detecting cows with udder health problems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An overall subjective scoring of milking speed can also be practised. The farmer can make a linear scoring of 1 very slow to 5 very fast (see also [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Udder conformation traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
Linear udder conformation is part of the recommended conformation recording in dairy cattle as approved by the World Holstein Friesian Federation (WHFF) and ICAR (see [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines). Approved standard traits are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Fore udder attachment                                         Rear udder height&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Median suspensory ligament                               Udder depth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
             Teat placement                                                     Teat length&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A full description of these traits is given in 3.10.6 below. The reason for approval of this set of traits is based on the fact that each of these traits can have a predictive value for udder health, or the trait influences workability (and thus milking time). We therefore also recommend recording of udder conformation according to the ICAR/WHFF-recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on literature studies some indicative relative importance of the traits can be given. The udder conformation trait with the largest influence on udder health is the udder depth. Shallow udders appear to be obviously healthier than deep udders. A reason why shallow udders are healthier may be that deep udders have an increased exposure to pathogenic bacteria and are more likely to be injured.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fore udder attachment also has an important influence on the udder health together with teat length. Probably again the main aspect here is that improved udder conformation (better attachment and shorter teats) decreases exposure to pathogens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, also other traits are of importance, but the genetic relationship with udder health may be lower, and different traits may provide similar genetic information. This generally causes udder health indexes to be based on a limited number of udder conformation traits only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example age effect on udder conformation&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 13. The influence of age on udder conformation in Holstein Friesian and Jersey&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;(Source: Oldenbroek et al., 1993).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait (cm)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;3&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Holstein&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |60.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |55.6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |18.1&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |21.6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Jersey&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance rear udder-floor&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |51.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |47.5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |44.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Distance between front teat&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |14.9&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.5&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Udder conformation changes over lifetime of the animal. Moreover, selection of cows favours (directly or indirectly) survival of cows with better udder conformation. This implies, that either observations are to be adjusted for age effects, or observations used for genetic evaluation are to be taken from a specified age only. In general, (inter)national evaluations are based on observations during first lactation only.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most complete udder health index includes direct and indirect udder health traits. An example of a direct trait is the inclusion of clinical mastitis in the index as happens in the Scandinavian countries. In some other countries, like The Netherlands, Canada and the United States, only indirect traits are used in the udder health index. These indirect traits can be subdivided in three main groups: somatic cell count, milkability and udder conformation traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording clinical mastitis directly by a farmer or veterinarian: outer visual signs on the udder or the milk.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording subclinical mastitis: not visual directly, but only perceptible by indicators. The most frequently used indicator is the number of somatic cells in milk (SCC), which can be routinely recorded parallel to milk recording. [[File:Imagefigure8.png|center|thumb|460x460px|&#039;&#039;Figure 8. Good recording practices udder health index.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  Recording udder conformation. There are several udder conformation traits with an influence on udder health. The most important one by far is udder depth, followed by fore udder attachment and teat length.&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording milkability (i.e., milking speed) by actual measurement or (linear) appraisal by the farmer. Milkability is an optimum trait: high milking speed is favourable as it reduces labour time for milking, but it increases leakage of milk and thus bacterial invasion of the teat canal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for udder health recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Reader instruction ===&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter gives a stepwise description of the possibilities to record udder health and correlated indicator traits. The starting-point is a situation in which not many efforts have been done yet, to improve udder health. In each step, a description is given on “What ?” to record, by “Who ?” this is done, and “When ? “.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation animal ID ===&lt;br /&gt;
Each animal’s ID should be unique to that animal, given to the animal at birth, never be used again for any other animal, and be used throughout the life of the animal in the country of birth and also by all other countries. The following information contained in Table 14 should be provided for each animal. For further details please refer to INTERBULL bulletin no. 28 (2001).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 14. Interbull recommended identification.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Breed code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Country of birth code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sex code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Animal code&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Character 12&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Interbull recommendation pedigree information ===&lt;br /&gt;
Birth date and sire and dam IDs should be recorded for all animals. Genetic evaluation centers should, in cooperation with other interested parties, keep track and report percentage of animals with missing ID and pedigree information. The overall quantitative measure of data quality should include percentage of sire and dam identified animals or alternatively percentage of missing ID&#039;s. Measures should be adopted to reduce the percentage of non-parent identified animals and missing birth information to very low numbers and ideally to zero. Examples of such measures are supervision of natural matings and artificial inseminations, avoidance of mixed semen, monitoring parturitions, comparison of birth date with calving date of dam, taking bull&#039;s ID from AI straws, etc. If there is the slightest doubt about parentage of a calf, utilization of genetic markers, e.g. micro-satellites, to ascertain parentage at birth is recommended. Until this goal is achieved, it is the INTERBULL recommendation that doubtful pedigree and birth information to be set to unknown (set parent ID to zero).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 0 - Prerequisites ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before an udder health system can be developed, a number of prerequisites should be accounted for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique animal identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Unique herd identification and registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# Individual animal pedigree information.&lt;br /&gt;
# Birth registration.&lt;br /&gt;
# A well functioning central database.&lt;br /&gt;
# Milk recording system (time information and logistics of sampling milk samples).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== General definitions ====&lt;br /&gt;
A lactation period is considered to commence on the day the animal gives birth. A lactation period is considered to end the day the animal ceases to give milk (goes dry). The lactation number refers to the number of the last lactation period started by the animal. The number of days in lactation denotes the time span between calendar date of the mastitis incident and the day the last lactation period commenced. The number of days in lactation may be negative when the incident occurs during the dry-period proceeding next calving. For more detailed information on the definition of lactation period, please see ICAR guidelines [[Section 02 – Cattle Milk Recording|Section 02]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 1 - Somatic cell count ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039;              In a milk recording system, with regular intervals milk samples are taken per cow. Samples are being gathered and taken to an official laboratory for analysis on contents of fat and protein. In addition, milk samples can be used for among others analysis of milk urea or somatic cell count. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Somatic cell count (SCC) in milk samples is obtained using Coulter Counter or Fossomatic equipment. Standardised procedures are available from the International Dairy Federation (www.idf.org). In milk of first parity cows, SCC ranges from 50.000-100.000 cells per ml from healthy udders to &amp;gt;1.000.000 cells per ml from udder quarters having an inflammatory infection. A current IDF standard is that subclinical mastitis is diagnosed in udders with milk having a SCC &amp;gt;200.000 cells per ml.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC can be presented either in absolute SCC or in classes based on the absolute SCC. As the distribution of absolute SCC is very skewed, generally a log-transformation is applied to a Somatic Cell Score (SCS). Other log-transformations are also used, sometimes including a correction of SCC for milk yield and effects like season and parity. SCS again can be analysed as a linear trait or used to define classes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SCC and SCS are generally recorded on a periodical basis, especially when included in the regular milk-recording scheme. Per record, the unique animal number and day of sampling are to be supplied. When recorded on a periodical basis, animals just starting their lactation may be included. Milk in the first week of lactation has a strongly augmented level of SCC and records on animals less then 5 days in lactation are generally ignored in further analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagefigure9.png|center|thumb|389x389px|&#039;&#039;Figure 9. Somatic cell count recording practice.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039;  Milk samples are taken either by an officer of the milk recording organisation or by the farmer. Logistics of handling samples (from the farmer to the laboratories) are generally organised by the milk recording organisation. It is important that these logistics include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number with each milk sample. Lab results will be transferred to the milk recording organisation, the last one also taking care of reporting the results in an informative way to the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039;             Sampling of milk of individual cows for analysis of fat and protein content, and thus also for SCC, is generally done with a three-, four- or five-weeks interval. With common milking systems, twice a day, sampling includes both morning and evening milking. With automated milking systems (robotic milking), sampling can be automatically performed on a 24-hours basis, taking samples from each visit of the cow to the robot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 2 - Udder conformation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?           &#039;&#039;&#039; There are several characteristics that can be measured on the conformation of the udder. The most common ones are fore udder attachment, front teat placement, teat length, udder depth, rear udder height and median suspensory ligament (ICAR Guidelines [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]]). Scoring these traits happens by scaling from 1 to 9. The figures below show the possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imagepossibility1.png|center|thumb|513x513px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility2.png|center|thumb|511x511px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility3.png|center|thumb|518x518px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility4.png|center|thumb|524x524px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility5.png|center|thumb|526x526px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Possibility6.png|center|thumb|528x528px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A report per cow is made of the six udder conformation traits mentioned above. An example of such a report is in Table 15 below.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 15. Example of linear scoring report.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Inspector&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Piet Paaltjes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Top-cow-bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Fore udder attachment&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Front teat placement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Teat length&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Udder depth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Rear udder height&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Median suspensory ligament&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; Specialised inspectors score the udder conformation from the data processing organisation. Their specialism can be guaranteed through regular meetings, where new standards can come up for discussion. The WHFF organises international standardisation of inspectors for the Holstein Friesian breed. The inspectors bring the records to the data processing organisation, where the records will be processed, stored and used for evaluation. Again, it is important that the reports include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. The inspectors also leave a copy of the report with the farmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the udder conformation information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the udder conformation data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; In most current conformation scoring systems, only the cows in their first lactation are scored. This makes scoring at least once a year necessary, assuming a calving interval of 12 months. However, it would be better to score more than once a year, for example once per 9 months. A heifer with a calving interval of 11 months will be dried off after 9 months. Such a heifer can be missed, when scoring only once per 12 months is performed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 3 - Milking speed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;What?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability (or milking speed) can be measured routinely on a large scale by subjectively scoring (the milking speed of certain small numbers of cows can be measured with advanced equipment). A milkability-form contains the individual cows together with the possibilities “very slow, slow, average, fast or very fast milking”. An example of a milkability-form is in Table 16.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 16. Milkability-form example.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date of  recording&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |May 24, 2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow number&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Very slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Slow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Average&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Very fast&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505385&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505392&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505404&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|154389505413&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|x&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|…..&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; The milkability-forms have to be filled up by the farmer. The farmer can send the form to the milk recording organisation or give the form to the officer of the milk recording organisation during the milk recording. After this the information can be used for the evaluation. Again, it is important that the forms include a strict unique identification of herd and individual cow number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to let the milkability information be useful for estimating udder health, linkage of the milkability data to the SCC-information should be warranted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; As the milking speed does not really change over lactations, estimating the milking speed only in the cow’s first lactation is sufficient. Again, assuming a 12 months calving interval, makes a scoring of the milking speed once a year necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 4 - Clinical mastitis incidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
What? In recording of udder health, the following general trait definition is recommended (following IDF recommendations):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical mastitis = inflammatory response of the udder: painful, red, swollen udder, with fever. This results in abnormal milk, and possibly outer visual or perceptible signs of the udder. Besides the cow can show a general illness.&lt;br /&gt;
# Healthy udder = absence of clinical or sub-clinical mastitis.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 17. Example of form for farmers recording mastitis incidents.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Person scoring&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Farmer &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisation&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Top-Cow-Bred&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |Hiemstra-dairy  UBN 3459678&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Period of  inspection&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January-June,  2002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Ear tag number  cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Date&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Details&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0538&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |January 26&lt;br /&gt;
|Extremely clotted  and watery “milk”&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0576&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |February 5&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0529&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |April 17&lt;br /&gt;
|Teat injury&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0541&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |May 31&lt;br /&gt;
|Culled June  2nd&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|0602&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |June 2&lt;br /&gt;
|Veterinary  treatment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|….&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Who?&#039;&#039;&#039; A veterinarian or the farmer can record clinical mastitis incidence. The obtained information has to be processed (at the farm, by the veterinary service, or e.g., the milk recording organisation) and sent to a central database, which can be done by telephone or computer either from the farm directly or from the processing organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;When?&#039;&#039;&#039; Except for some specific infections during the growing period, mastitis is related to the lactation of the adult female. Individual mastitis incidents are to be recorded specifying calendar date, and a database link (using a unique animal number) then will have to provide lactation number and number of days in lactation. For this purpose the database will have to include birth date and calving dates of the individual animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The incidence of mastitis is generally expressed per lactation period, specifying lactation period number (or parity of the cow). Standardised length of the lactation period is 305 days. However, for mastitis incidence a standardised period of 15 days prior to calving until 210 days after calving is advised (or to date of culling if less than 210 days after calving).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinical mastitis can be recorded on a daily basis, i.e., all (new) incidents are registered when they are (first) observed and/or when they are (first) treated. Cows having no incidents are afterwards coded ‘healthy’. Clinical mastitis can also be recorded on a periodical basis, e.g. by a veterinarian visiting the farm monthly, coding all animals momentary diseased or healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional information on mastitis incidence may be obtained from culling reasons. Culling reason potentially makes it possible to identify cows with mastitis that are culled instead of treated. When the culling reason is mastitis, this can be considered as an additional incident. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With registration on a daily basis, it becomes feasible to define the length of the incident. However, this requires very careful observation and registration. An incident may be defined as ‘repeated’ when the observation or veterinary treatment is 3 days or longer after the former observation or treatment. Other additional information on udder health is in recording the quarter. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 18. Examples of clinical mastitis specifications&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  data &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Specification  definition &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| &#039;&#039;&#039; Reference &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Norwegian Red,  first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Clinical  mastitis (0/1) -15-210 days, including culling reasons&lt;br /&gt;
|20.5 % of the  cows had clinical mastitis&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Heringstad et  al. 2001&#039;&#039;&#039; (Livestock Production Science, 67: 265-272)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|US Holstein  Friesian, first parity&lt;br /&gt;
|Total number  of clinical episodes&lt;br /&gt;
|On average  0.48 (sd 1.03, range 0 to 8)&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Nash et al.,  2000&#039;&#039;&#039; (Journal of Dairy Science, 83: 2350‑2360)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summarising mastitis ====&lt;br /&gt;
Basic observation: clinical mastitis, subclinical mastitis, healthy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (2) subclinical vs (0) healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical vs (0) subclinical + healthy, or&lt;br /&gt;
# Clinical + subclinical vs (0) healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Primary data is unique cow number + observation mastitis + calendar date. This allows combination with other herd data, pedigree data, reproduction and milk recording data. This also allows calculation of a contemporary group mean (e.g., based on all animals in the same herd and parity).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other aspects are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of incidents per lactation period -10 to 210 days in lactation&lt;br /&gt;
# Repeated observation when 3 days or longer after last observation&lt;br /&gt;
# Inclusion of culling for mastitis as additional incident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other udder health information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Bacteriological culturing of milk samples to find the specific bacterium responsible for the inflammation (e.g., &#039;&#039;Staphylococcus aureus, coliform, Streptococcus agalactiae&#039;&#039; ) - recommendations on standard methodology are provided by the IDF&lt;br /&gt;
# Removal of teats, teat injuries - there are standards for scoring of teat injuries, but these are not included in any official guideline&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the recording of subclinical mastitis, we can also use measurements others than SCC, either from on-line recording in the milking parlour or from centralised analysis of milk samples. In these recommendations, no further attention is paid to conductivity of milk, NAG-ase, and cytokines. A lot of work in this area is in progress and some of it is already implemented in automated milking systems - for further information we refer to information of the ICAR Recording and Sampling Devices sub-Committee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Step 5 - Data quality ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recorded data should always be accompanied by a full description of the recording programme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# How were herds selected?&lt;br /&gt;
# How were recording persons (e.g., veterinarians, and farmers) selected and instructed? Any standardised recording protocol used?&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of recording forms or (computer) programs are used? - What type of equipment is used?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is there any (change of) selection of animals within herds?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each record should at least include a unique individual animal number, and the recording date. In case of mastitis, also a unique identification of person responsible for the recording is to be included. The unique individual animal number should facilitate a data link to a pedigree file (e.g., sire), milk recording file (e.g., calving date, birth date) and to a unique herd number. When this data links can not be established, each record on mastitis and somatic cell count should also include pedigree, birth date, calving date and parity and unique herd number. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After completion of recording, precise specification is required of any data checking, adjustment and selection steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What types of data checks are practised? (E.g., does the unique number exist for a living animal, or is recording date within a known lactation period?)&lt;br /&gt;
# Are averages and standard deviations within herds or per recording person standardised?&lt;br /&gt;
# Is a minimum of records per herd, per animal or whatever applied before data analysis is started?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consistency and completeness of the recording and representativeness of the data is of utmost importance. Any doubt on this is to be included in a discussion on the results. The amount of information and the data structure determine the accuracy of the result; measures of this accuracy should always be provided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For general information on data quality, we refer to [https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/553/553 Interbull bulletin no. 28], and the reports of the ICAR working group on Data Quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decision-support for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information from a single farm can be combined with information from other farms to serve as a basis for a genetic evaluation (per region, country, or breeding organisation, or even internationally). A first prerequisite is of course that information is recorded in a uniform manner. A second prerequisite is a (national) database with appropriate data logistics to combine pedigree files (herd book, identification and registration), milk recording files and files with reproductive data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Presentation of genetic evaluations ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that breeding values on udder health for marketed sires are available on a routinely basis, i.e., included in a listing of marketed sires by official organisations. The udder health index might be considered one of the major sub-indexes. The udder health index itself should preferably be composed of predicted breeding values for direct traits and predicted breeding values for indirect, indicator traits (i.e., udder conformation, SCS and milk flow). Combination of direct and indirect information maximises accuracy of selection on resistance towards clinical and subclinical mastitis. In turn, the udder health index should be used to compose an overall performance index, for an overall ranking of animals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The udder health index can be presented &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Either in absolute units (e.g., monetary units or % of diseased daughters) or in relative terms.&lt;br /&gt;
# Using either an observed or standardised standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
# Relative to either an absolute or relative genetic basis (e.g., as a deviation from 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is recommended that a uniform basis of presenting indexes for functional traits is chosen per country or breeding organisation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within the udder health index, the weighting of predicted breeding values (PBVs) for direct and predictor traits is to be based on the information content - dependent on relationship between trait and udder health, and the accuracy of the PBVs (i.e., the number of underlying observations). As the information contents generally differ per sire, relative weighting within the udder health index should be performed on an individual sire basis. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weighting of the udder health index as part of an overall ranking index is to be based on the relative (economic, ecological and social-cultural) value of genetically improved udder health relative to other traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Claw Health in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw and foot disorders have become a major concern of dairy farmers around the world. They are among the major culling reasons in dairy cattle and play a significant role for the profitability of farms. Compromised animal welfare is caused by their high incidence, severity and repetitive occurrence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Different data sources related to claw and foot disorders are available, including data from veterinarians, claw trimmers and farmers. The recording of claw health data during regular claw trimming has been identified as a particularly valuable source of information for herd claw health management and for genetic evaluation. However, integration of data for monitoring and improving dairy health should be carefully considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nordic countries have pioneered the recording of claw health from claw trimming visits and then systematically using the data. Routine documentation of claw health data started in Sweden in 2003 and one year later in Finland and Norway (Johansson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johansson, K., J.-Å. Eriksson, U.S. Nielsen, J. Pösö, and G.P. Aamand. 2011. Genetic evaluation of claw health in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Interbull Bull. 44:224–228. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Ødegård &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ødegård, C., M. Svendsen, and B. Heringstad. 2013. Genetic analyses of claw health in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:7274–7283. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6509.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Häggman, J., and J. Juga. 2013. Genetic parameters for hoof disorders and feet and leg conformation traits in Finnish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3319–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6334.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Since 2006 claw health data has been routinely recorded in the Netherlands. In several countries it is now possible to electronically register data from claw trimming visits and recording systems and consequently accessibility of claw data have improved. Electronic systems by professional trimmers to document claw health status are,for example, used in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain (Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). With this development, larger amounts of claw health data are becoming available, implying the need for harmonization and further measures to strengthen data quality and consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations//atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ICAR Claw Health Atlas&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; was published in 2015 (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and has so far been translated to nineteen languages. The aim of this atlas was to harmonise the collection of high quality data within and across countries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of claw health information, with focus mainly on claw trimming data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sources of data related to claw health ===&lt;br /&gt;
A description of each of the types of data related to claw health is provided in Table 19.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 19. Types of data related to claw health.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;No.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of data&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Claw Trimming Data&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Several studies have shown that data recorded by hoof trimmers are suitable for genetic evaluation of claw health (Häggman &amp;amp; Juga 2013&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;; Koenig et al. 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koenig, S., A.R. Sharifi, H. Wentrot, D. Landmann, M. Eise, and H. Simianer. 2005. Genetic parameters of claw and foot disorders estimated with logistic models. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3316–3325. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (05)73015-0.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van Pelt 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Claw disorders are included in the comprehensive ICAR Central Health Key, that is consistent with the ICAR Standard for claw data recording and the [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] (see appendix of the ICAR Health guidelines). These standards should be referred to in electronic systems supposed to facilitate data recording in connection with claw trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The high coverage and regular structure of the claw trimming data make them highly valuable for analyses, and these guidelines will focus on that source of information on claw health.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Veterinary Diagnoses&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|In addition to information from claw trimming, veterinary diagnoses are an additional source of information that is informative especially for more severe cases. This information is available in countries with routine recording of diagnoses, often directly in connection with veterinary interventions and medical treatments, including the Nordic countries, Austria, and Germany (Aamand, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Aamand, G.P. 2006. Data collection and genetic evaluation of health traits in the Nordic countries. Page British Cattle Breeders Conference, Shrewsbury, UK.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner et al., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., B. Fuerst-Waltl, W. Obritzhauser, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher, B. Grassauer, M. Mayerhofer, and A. Koeck. 2012. Recording of direct health traits in Austria—Experience report with emphasis on aspects of availability for breeding purposes. J. Dairy Sci. 95:2765–2777. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4876.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Østerås et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Østerås, O., H. Solbu, A.O. Refsdal, T. Roalkvam, O. Filseth, and A. Minsaas. 2007. Results and evaluation of thirty years of health recordings in the Norwegian dairy cattle population. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4483–4497. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0030.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Analyses of claw disorders exclusively based on veterinary diagnoses are expected to have much lower frequencies than those based on hoof trimming data and may include only diseases found in lame cows. Integrated use of data, including records from regular preventive trimming, will accordingly give a more complete picture of the claw health status of the herd. More information on the collection and use of health data is available in chapter 1 (Dairy Cattle Health).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness and locomotion scoring&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Lameness describes irregularity of locomotion and can have very different causes. However, in most cases it can be seen as a sign (symptom) of a painful condition in the locomotor system and more specifically in the limbs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the results of lameness examinations (which is the distinction between lame and non-lame animals) and data from locomotion scoring (e.g. 9-point scale used for conformation scoring – refer to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of ICAR Guidelines); 5-point-scale such as the system described by Sprecher et al., 1997) could be useful as indicators in analyses focused on claw health. There are alternative systems to be applied according to intended users and use (e.g. Sprecher et al., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D.E. Hostetler, and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47:1179–1187. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00098-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F.C., and D.M. Weary. 2006. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 89:139–146. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Several studies have shown that the results from screening of locomotion can be used for supporting and improving herd management and breeding (Berry et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S.L., D.H. Read, R.L. Walker, and T.R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560. doi:10.2460/javma.237.5.555.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gaddis et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gaddis, K.L.P., J.B. Cole, J.S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7543.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck et al., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., S. Loker, F. Miglior, D.F. Kelton, J. Jamrozik, and F.S. Schenkel. 2014. Genetic relationships of clinical mastitis, cystic ovaries, and lameness with milk yield and somatic cell score in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 97:5806–5813. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7785.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Although the causes of lameness or disturbed locomotion remain unclear and limits the value of working exclusively with indicator traits alone, they may become obvious when referring to incidences of individual claw health traits as measures of success. Therefore, the use of information on whether or not an animal showed clinical signs of pain and the severity can be very valuable. The results from Egger-Danner et al. (2017) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium and 11th International Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, 6-9 Sep, 2017, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;indicate that this information could be used for breeding purposes despite the fact that lameness scores do not identify the causes of lameness. Locomotion and lameness data are integral parts of recording systems for routine welfare assessments on farms, so increasing coverage may be expected for the future. The increased amount of data may at least partly outweigh the shortcomings of scoring systems regarding detection of early and mild cases with slightly impaired locomotion (Tomlinson et al., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tomlinson, D.J., C.H. Mülling, and T.M. Fakler. 2004. Invited Review: Formation of keratins in the bovine claw: roles of hormones, minerals, and vitamins in functional claw integrity. J. Dairy Sci. 87:797–809. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (04)73223-3Van der Linde, C., G. de Jong, E.P.C. Koenen, and H. Eding. 2010. Claw health index for Dutch dairy cattle based on claw trimming and conformation data. J. Dairy Sci. 93:4883–4891. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3183.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Tadich et al., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tadich, N., E. Flor, and L. Green. 2010. Associations between hoof lesions and locomotion score in 1098 unsound dairy cows. Vet. J. 184:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.01.005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bilcalho &amp;amp; Oikonomou, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R.C., and G. Oikonomou. 2013. Control and prevention of lameness associated with claw lesions in dairy cows. Livest. Sci. 156:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Feet and Legs conformation traits&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Type traits associated with feet and legs are included as part of the conformation assessment of breed societies and dairy cattle breeding organisations and as such are also covered by [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR guidelines. Data from this routine and internationally harmonized way of collecting data may be considered as source of additional information for claw health improvement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies in different countries and breeds have revealed conflicting results regarding the correlations between conformation of feet and legs on the one hand and claw health on the other hand: There are only a few reports showing favourable correlations (Fuerst-Waltl et al., 2015; van der Linde et al., 2010) while most studies have weak correlations and consequently limits the use of conformation traits as indicators (e.g., Koenig and Swalve, 2006; Häggman and Juga, 2013; Ødegård et al., 2014). However, locomotion assessment is an exception and showed more consistent results and moderate correlations, although scored only in non-lame cows and usually only once in first parity cows.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Data from Automation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Different systems are becoming available for automated recording of data on activity, locomotion pattern, lying and feeding behaviour of cattle, including pedometers, video image analysis, thermography and other sensors. Although the focus of their use is often oestrus detection, these measurements can provide useful information for early and more accurate detection of lameness and foot pathologies (Alsaaod et al., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr and A. Steiner, 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller, M. Reckardt, K. Friedli, and A. Steiner. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Experiences with broader use of this type of data, which is becoming increasingly abundant is still limited; but parameters such as number and duration of lying bouts, number and length of strides, walking speed, bite rate while grazing, duration and pattern of feed intake and rumination have been shown to be different between healthy and sick cows (Beer et al., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows. PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Their potential to help identify animals that require special health care within farms is likely to be increasingly exploited, and routines for using automated data across herds in the context of claw health improvement are expected.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of claw health disorders according ICAR Claw Health Key ===&lt;br /&gt;
To be able to combine and compare claw health data between countries and for breeding purposes, standardizing the recording and harmonizing the terminology of claw disorders are crucial. Harmonized definitions have been published by the ICAR WGFT (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ Atlas] describes 27 claw disorders (Table 20); the corresponding [https://www.icar.org/icar-technical-series-atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ ICAR Claw Health Atlas] illustrates the distinct disorders by typical pictures in a number of languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;4&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 20. Abbreviations and harmonized descriptions of foot and claw disorders (Egger-Danner et al., 2015&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Name&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Code&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Synonymous Terms&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Asymmetric claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|AC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Significant difference in width, height and/or length between outer  and inner claw which cannot be balanced by trimming&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Corkscrew claw&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Any torsion of either the outer or inner claw. The dorsal edge of the  wall deviates from a straight line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|CD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Concave shape of the dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Infection of the digital and/or interdigital skin with erosion, mostly  painful ulcerations and/or chronic hyperkeratosis/proliferation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Mortellaro disease, Strawberry disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
superficial dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|All kind of mild dermatitis around the claws that is not classified as  digital dermatitis.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|DS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Two or more layers of under-run sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Underrun sole&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HHE&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Erosion of the bulbs, in severe cases typically V-shaped, possibly  extending to the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Slurry heel, Erosio ungulae&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Axial horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the inner claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Horizontal horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Horizontal crack in the claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Vertical horn fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|HFV&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Vertical (longitudinal) crack in the outer or dorsal claw wall&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Interdigital growth of fibrous tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Corns, Tyloma, Interdigital fibroma&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|IP&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Symmetric painful swelling of the foot commonly accompanied with  odorous smell with sudden onset of lameness&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Foot rot, Foul in the foot, Interdigital necrobacillosis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Scissor claws&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Tip of toes crossing each other&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SH&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused and/or circumscribed red or yellow discoloration of the sole  and/or white line&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole bruising&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage diffused form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHD&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Diffused light red to yellowish discoloration&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrhage circumscribed form&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SHC&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Clear differentiation between discoloured and normal coloured horn&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Swelling of coronet and/or bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SW&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uni- or bilateral swelling of tissue above horn capsule, which may be  caused by different conditions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|U&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulceration of the sole area specified according to localization  (zones) such as bulb ulcer, sole ulcer, toe ulcer/necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|SU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Penetration through the sole horn exposing fresh or necrotic corium.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Bulb ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|BU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the bulb&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TU&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Ulcer located at the toe&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Toe necrosis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TN&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necrosis of the tip of the toe with affection of bone tissue&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Thin sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|TS&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Sole horn yields (feels spongy) when finger pressure is applied&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WL&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line with or without purulent exudation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line abscess&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLA&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Necro-purulent inflammation of the corium&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line fissure&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|WLF&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Separation of the white line which remains after balancing both soles&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|–&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common classification of claw disorders makes the distinction between infectious and non-infectious disorders (Alsaood &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015). Infectious disorders are primarily digital dermatitis, interdigital dermatitis, interdigital phlegmon, and heel horn erosion. Non-infectious disorders include claw horn disruptions (also called claw horn disorders), sole hemorrhages, white line fissure, horn fissures, ulcers, thin sole, and all kinds of claw distortion. However, several disorders that affect the claw horn capsule, such as wall, sole, and its junction, i.e. white line, are often secondarily infected. This also applies to interdigital hyperplasia which is usually considered to be non-infectious, too, although pathogenesis is still partly unknown.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definitions of other terms used in these guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
Definitions of Terms used in these guidelines are given in Table 21.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 21. Definitions of terms used in these guidelines (detailed information is found in chapters 0 and 4.6).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Term&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|New lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A claw disorder recorded for the first time in a particular location or claw or recoded later than the minimum recovery period after the previous recording of the same kind in the same location or claw.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Chronic cow and persistent lesion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|A chronic cow is a cow presenting a persistent lesion over a prolonged period and/or several relapses such that shows the same disorder after 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Incidence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows developing at least one new case of a claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders with comparable density in a certain period of time (e.g. annual incidence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Prevalence rate&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|The proportion of cows affected by a particular claw disorder relative to all cows screened for claw disorders in a certain period of time or at a certain point of time (e.g. annual prevalence rate, trimming visit prevalence rate).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cows screened for presence of claw disorders, so cows presented for trimming at a particular date or cows present in the herd and included in regular checking of claws.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Time frame defined for benchmarks (e.g. year, season or lactation period).&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Figure defined for benchmarking which specification by, e.g. herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring, housing systems, trimming policy, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scope ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImageScope.png|center|thumb|&#039;&#039;Figure 10. Overview of scope of guideline for claw trimming data. Each box is further elaborated in the chapters below.&#039;&#039;|423x423px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10 gives a summary of the main elements of this guideline. The current guidelines on claw health cover only data recorded by hoof trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trait definition - claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
More detailed information is available under Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:1&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [http://www.icar.org/index.php/publications-technical-materials/technical-series-and-proceedings/atlas-claw-health-and-translations/ here] on the ICAR website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Definition - claw trimming data ===&lt;br /&gt;
At trimming the claw health status of each cow is recorded. Cows with no claw disorder should be recorded as healthy, and presence of any defined claw disorder (Table 20) should be recorded at animal, leg or claw level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of records and the level of specific details used vary between recording systems (see codes Table 20). Traits can be defined more in detail if additional information on location (e.g leg/claw/position) and severity is recorded (refer chapter 4.5 - Data Recording – claw trimming data). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== New lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a specific disorder, the differentiation between a new episode, or a new lesion and a previous case requires a definition of the recovery period of each lesion (if possible). For some disorders (AC CC CD and SC) the process is permanent or irreversible, so no healing period can be defined. For other claw disorders a recovery period of 4 months can be used, i.e. &#039;&#039;&#039;if a new case is recorded more than 4 months after the previous case it can be assumed to be a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039; On the other hand, the development of the same lesion (e.g. WLD) on &#039;&#039;&#039;another location&#039;&#039;&#039; (claw) is considered to be a &#039;&#039;&#039;new lesion&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Chronic cow and persistent lesion ===&lt;br /&gt;
A chronic cow is a cow which shows a persistent lesion over a long period and/or shows various relapses during lactation. It could be due to a failed treatment or to a delay in recognition. In order to differentiate an acute lesion from a chronic one, it is important to know the period of time that has passed since it first appeared, or the number of relapses recorded for the same lesion. This is a key concept when it comes to make decisions about individual cow in terms of herd management. &#039;&#039;&#039;A chronic claw health lesion is defined as a lesion which persists over 3 consecutive trimmings during lactation, with intervals in between exceeding the period of time previously established and required to define a new lesion.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Recording – claw trimming data ==&lt;br /&gt;
The conditions and circumstances of claw health management differ widely across countries (Christen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). The percentage of trimmings recorded by professional trimmers varies. Claw care is generally carried out by trained farm staff, professional claw trimmers, or the farmers themselves. Different tools are used to record information on claw disorders and foot and leg conditions, including individual free-text notes (no standardized form), standard forms with reference to the key for claw health on paper sheet reports, free-text or standard forms on mobile electronic devices, and herd management software. For use in routine genetic evaluations for claw health, data from claw trimming need to be recorded routinely and stored in a central database. For advanced herd management tools with benchmarking and comparison between farms, central data storage is necessary as well. A key aspect of the successful initiatives to build routine genetic evaluations for claw and leg health is the development of an infrastructure for electronic documentation and recording of claw trimming data (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:2&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs as the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Veterinary Journal 198, 358-361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nielsen, 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nielsen, P. 2014. Claw health data – recording and usage in Denmark. Page in ICAR Technical Series no. 18 39th ICAR Biennial Session. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy, Berlin, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Van Pelt, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Pelt, M.L. 2015. Implementation of a claw health index in The Netherlands. Page Seminar des Ausschusses für Genetik der ZAR, Salzburg, Austria.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data security aspects have to be given special attention and measures have to be implemented around the transparency of use of data and protection of personnel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum requirements: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
# Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly recommended:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Trimmer-ID (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional/additional information: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones (Kofler &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J., J.A. Hangl, R. Pesenhofer, and G. Landl. 2011. Evaluation of claw health in heifers in seven dairy farms using a digital claw trimming protocol and claw data analysis system. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 124:272–281.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;))&lt;br /&gt;
# Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD (Dopfer, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dopfer, 2009. Digital Dermatitis The dynamics of digital dermatitis in dairy cattle and the manageable state of disease. CanWest Conference October 17 – 20, 2009. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://hoofhealth.ca/Dopfer.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data Validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The validation of data is based on a comparison between collected data and valid references to ensure that data is compliant with standards and fit for the intended use. The challenge with the validation process is to choose appropriate criteria and adequate levels in order to extract reliable information from raw data. There are two main steps in the data validation process: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Screening ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data screening consists of a series of basic checks on integrity, format and completeness. For instance, checks can be made on ID plausibility for animals, herds and diagnosis codes, which are necessary to avoid suspect values. Other checks can be on the plausibility of dates, verifying dates of birth, calving and diagnosis in order to eliminate typing errors. Data screening is usually implemented as data filters, routines or algorithms applied when entering data (included as default in pc-tablet applications or when new data is uploaded to the central database) or manually when new data is added to an existing claw database. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Check for data screening include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
# valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
# valid date &lt;br /&gt;
# valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
# additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Verification ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data verification consists of checking the correctness of data. Completeness of data recording on farm should be considered as well. The exhaustiveness and the completeness of the process depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Purpose of use ====&lt;br /&gt;
Depending upon the intended use, the quantity and quality of data is important, in relation to the purpose. At the farm level the farmer, or the trimmer/vet, will use the recorded data to manage cow-level decisions and to evaluate current claw health and to get an insight into causes of possible claw-health and lameness problems. Moreover, it is used to assess the effect of previous management measures, to take decisions on herd management and to understand the reasons of fluctuations of claw health status when they occur. Another use is for benchmarking analysis in order to define benchmarks and standards that serve as references for evaluating claw health status. Claw data are also used in genetic analyses, to estimate breeding values and genetic trends. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management analysis requires as much complete data as possible, and should include as much information as possible about the risk factors. Therefore, this type of validation is usually less restrictive since it mainly checks the completeness of the data. If the data are used by the farmer, a basic data check is done on farm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to data for research and routine genetic evaluation, data validation needs to be more exhaustive in order to use only information from farms that can be considered as reliable. The data editing process is usually more exhaustive in order to ensure data correctness. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks, calculation and monitoring, data must be checked for representativeness. Information on herd size, housing system, and geographic location should be taken into account to ensure the data are representative. Herds with outlier parameters should be eliminated. The percentage of trimmed cows within herds must be as high as possible. Benchmarks are often calculated without considering environmental effects in the model. For interpretation and comparability of benchmarks environmental information included as well as information on calculation and data validation have to be considered as these might have a big impact on the results. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Source of data ====&lt;br /&gt;
The origin of data has an impact on the reference levels used to check data quality. Depending on the recording system, claw health data are recorded by trimmers, veterinarians and/or farmers. A large proportion of data is usually provided by trained trimmers who register claw health data during preventative trimming or treatments, while veterinarians generally register only the most severe cases. Thus, the majority of claw health data are recorded either by claw trimmers or herd staff and not by veterinarians. Therefore, the data provided by trimmers, or collected by farmers usually show a higher incidence rate than the data supplied by veterinarian. The diagnoses of veterinarians and claw trimmers, however, may be more accurate than those of farmers. The routine collection of information via claw trimmers may provide a much more reliable picture on the prevalence of claw disorders in dairy cattle. In most cases, we have to deal with a combination of data from different sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Editing criteria ====&lt;br /&gt;
In order to ensure the correctness and the accuracy of the data, several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Trimmer/Vet data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, data on claw disorders are collected by hoof trimmers during scheduled (mainly), or emergency visits. A minimum number of records should be required per trimmer to ensure continuity and representativeness of the collected data (Perez-Cabal &amp;amp; Charfeddine, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pérez-Cabal, M.A., and N. Charfeddine. 2015. Models for genetic evaluations of claw health traits in Spanish dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 98: 8186-8194. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9562.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Data recorded in training periods should be removed. Besides, incidence rate for each disorder could be calculated and compared with the overall incidence rate of other trimmers (in the same area/country and time period) and checked whether it is within the range of e.g. two standard deviations (to ensure uniformity in recording and to detect under- or over-reporting).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum number of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
# calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also 4.6.3 Monitoring and training for data recording. &lt;br /&gt;
# check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Herd level verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Routines for claw trimming may vary, but trimming is often done once or twice a year for each cow. Typically, the farmer selects the cows to be trimmed, that is why a minimum number of records per herd and per year and &#039;&#039;&#039;a minimum percentage of present cows trimmed per herd and year are required in order to avoid selection bias&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. Van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management, the percentage of cows trimmed should be used to establish the reference group for comparisons within herd&#039;&#039;&#039;. Depending on the use of data, a minimum frequency could be required to avoid using data from herds that under-report (mainly used for genetic analysis and benchmarking calculation). Additional checks on herd-trimming days are used to ensure that a minimum percentage of present cows are trimmed and there is a minimum number of animals without disorder per visit (e.g. van der Waaij &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Waaij, E.H., M. Holzhauer, E. Ellen, C. Kamphuis, and G. de Jong. 2005. Genetic parameters for claw disorders in Dutch dairy cattle and correlations with conformation traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3672–3678. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73053-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Because herd sizes, data structure and management practices vary among countries, the level of minimum incidence rate or the number/percentage of trimmed cows that are required needs to be defined accordingly to avoid a massive elimination of useful data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check whether only trimmed cows are recorded&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum incidence rate for a specific disorder or for overall disorders&lt;br /&gt;
# minimum percentage of trimmed cows in herd in observation period &lt;br /&gt;
# continuity of data provision from herd &lt;br /&gt;
# note the strategy of trimming&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Animal data verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
Checks at animal level are focused on verifying unique identification, herd location at trimming, age at calving, sire of the cow, days in milk and parity status. Claw disorders may be recorded for each claw. Moreover, in some recording protocols they differentiate between inner and outer claw. In some countries, claw disorder trait is defined at claw level, while in others the trait is defined at animal level and the score assigned to each animal is the highest value in case that the cow shows the same disorder on different claws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
# check for correct additional information (see chapter recording and trait definition)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Record verification =====&lt;br /&gt;
A claw disorder record describes the status of the claw at any given day. To validate a new record, we need to answer to the question whether this record defines a new episode with the same diagnosis or is a just a control of the same case. The time intervals used &#039;&#039;&#039;to define the following diagnosis as a new event&#039;&#039;&#039; for each disorder in the same claw is &#039;&#039;&#039;4 months&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# check for new lesion or new case (see chapter 0)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Summary ====&lt;br /&gt;
Minimum criteria for validation for use in herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# screening requirements &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for use for genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# only valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
# valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additional recommended criteria for benchmarking: define criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and training for data recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data collectors, which can be trimmers, veterinarian or farmers, should be reliable and accurate in order to reflect a stable and consistent collection process across persons and over time. Data collector should apply the same disorder, the same definition and scoring scale. Therefore, having a good documentation process, training course and statistical monitoring are useful to ensure a good harmonization between data collectors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ICAR claw health atlas should be made available to all collectors, or at least a local guideline, which should contain pictures and definitions of the disorders based on ICAR claw health atlas definitions. Also, the used scale to score the disorders of different severity degrees should be made clear in this documentation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regular training sessions should be made to train data collectors and to discuss different recording interpretations. A comparison between experienced persons and new ones during practical sessions could be a good way to unify criteria. Moreover, ensuring consistency between data collectors should be done by checking data collectors criteria using pictures for different disorders with varying degrees of severity and are also considered very useful to reduce variability. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistical analysis of data collected by each data collector, such as a calculation of the frequency of each disorder and its deviations with the rest of group, could be useful to detect under-reporting or misunderstanding of the scoring scale. In case a disorder has more than two classes, the frequency of the scores can be compared between one person and the rest of a group. More detailed monitoring per person could be done by analysing the scores per lactation number of the cow. In case a large number of scores per data collector is available, is to compute the correlation between the scores of one data collector and the scores of rest of the group by using bivariate genetic analysis. This shows the quality of harmonisation of trait definition between data collectors (Veerkamp &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Veerkamp, R.F., Gerritsen, C. L. M., Koenen, E. P. C. , Hamoen, A., and De Jong, G. 2002. Evaluation of Classifiers that Score Linear Type Traits and Body Condition Score Using Common Sires. J. Dairy Sci. 85:976–983&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this analysis, two data sets are created, one with scores of one data collector and the other with scores of all other data collectors from a certain period, for example 12 months. Both data sets can be analysed in a bivariate analysis, estimating different (genetic) parameters. The analysis can be carried out for each trait and for each data collector. Incidence rates per trimmer as well as from the bivariate analyses the heritability and genetic correlation can be used as indicators for data quality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recommendation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
# Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
# Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Use of Claw Health Data – general ===&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status of each cow provides an important insight into the health status of the entire herd and population. Benchmark parameters like incidence and prevalence rates are used to monitor the degree of claw lesions within dairy herds and to highlight the full scale of claw health problems in the whole population. The values of such parameters depend on the frequency and the recovery period of each claw disorder, which are affected by cow and herd-related risk factors. The assessment of these risk factors helps to address why rates fluctuate within herds and how to fix them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Risk factors ====&lt;br /&gt;
Many risk factors predisposing the occurrence of claw disorders have been reported in the literature. These risk factors can be related to herd management conditions or to the individual cow status (see Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For optimization of herd management as well as interpretation of benchmarks information related to risk factors is valuable. Targeted strategies to reduce the incidence of feet and legs disorders can be elaborated if this information is available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Indicators/parameters for claw health ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Incidence rate (IR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Incidence rate describes the development of new cases of claw disorder. It is defined as the number of new cases of a specific claw disorder per unit of animal-time during a given time period. Incidence rate highlights the speed at which new cases of a disorder occur in the herd and therefore is more suited to assess claw health management policy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 5. Computation of incidence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
IR = \frac{\text{Number of new cases in a defined time period}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk during the time period}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Prevalence rate (PR) =====&lt;br /&gt;
Prevalence rate describes the percentage of cows having a claw disorder. It is defined as a proportion of cows affected by a disorder at a particular time point or during a specified time period. Prevalence takes into account the new and the pre-existing cases whereas incidence includes only the new cases. It provides an appropriate snapshot to show the magnitude of the spread of a disorder within a given population at a certain point of time (point prevalence) or during a period of time (period prevalence). Prevalence rates calculated in different countries or studies to be comparable should be calculated in the same way and for the same production system (see Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Equation 6. Computation of prevalence rate for claw health disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
PR = \frac{\text{Number of all cases in a defined point or period of time}}{\text{Number of animal-time units at risk at the point or period of time}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Definitions for parameters calculation: =====&lt;br /&gt;
For the calculation of incidence and prevalence rates three important concepts should be defined:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a. Reference levels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A key point for between the herds benchmarking process is how to compare with the appropriate benchmarking group and how to establish a target related to this group. For that reason, it is important to define a comparable reference level. Reference level could be defined by herd size, production level, geographic location, flooring and housing systems, season, parity, age and stage of lactation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b. Cows at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the challenges of a benchmark calculation is the definition of the denominator. By definition it should be equal to the number of cows at risk in the time period. However, the concept of “cows at risk during the time period” may be inaccurate if not all cows are trimmed or checked. So, if we consider cows at risk as cows present in the herd at any moment of the time period that means that non-trimmed cows are assumed to be “healthy cows”. While if we consider cows at risk as trimmed cows during the time period, then the calculated rates depend on the percentage of trimmed cows. In situations of regular lameness screening (every 1-4 weeks) then this assumption may be valid. Detection may also be influenced by the timing of the foot inspection, with lesion detection rates higher at 60-120 days into lactation in most herds. The other critical point is that we deal with open herds where animals are leaving and entering the herd throughout the time period. Dohoo et al. (2009)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that animals for which there is a loss of follow-up during the time period are called withdrawals and the simplest way of dealing with them is to subtract half the number of withdrawals from the population at risk. However, calculating animal-days within the herd is perhaps the most precise way to account for withdrawals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c. Time period at risk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmark calculation should be performed on a reference period of time which allows a fair comparison within and across herds with different management systems and at different times of the year. The time period could be defined as a year, season or lactation period.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for herd management ==&lt;br /&gt;
Herd management is a continuous process which involves decision making and supervision of claw health status. This process starts with recording all useful data that makes claw health monitoring feasible. Documentation on claw disorders allows farmers/hoof trimmers/ veterinarians to get an up-to-date report on claw health status at herd and animal levels. Trends of prevalence rate and incidence rate within the herd and comparison with reference levels should serve as a monitoring tool for claw health. If a value is determined to be out of the desired range, an assessment of the associated risk factors should be made to allow for the implementation of corrective actions. Claw health data for herd management has a use at two different levels.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the cow level, documentation provides data about individual cow history and allows follow-up of the healing process and re-check requirements. At the herd level documentation provides data about timing during lactation/season of hoof trimming for maintenance and lesions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
#* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
#* Is the claw health strategy/new treatment working?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show examples of graphs which can help to answer those questions at herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are often recurrent, and there are frequently several registers for the same disorder recorded on the same claw on different dates. When using claw health data for herd management, it is important to know whether the new register defines a new disease process for the same kind of lesion or is just a control for the same episode. Moreover, it is useful to define the concept of chronic cow or chronic lesion in order to take the optimum disposal decision. Cramer &amp;amp; Guard (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. &amp;amp; C. Guard, 2011. Recommendations for the calculation of incidence rates for monitoring foot health. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium &amp;amp; 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, New Zealand.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; recommend the definition of both concepts at the level of cow’s lactation instead of at the claw’s lesion level because claw disorders on different limbs are not really independent and unless we follow very closely we cannot be sure that different records at different moments of lactation are due to different disease processes.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng.png|center|thumb|477x477px|&#039;&#039;Figure 11. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of claw disorders at different dates (Cramer, 2018).&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng2.png|center|thumb|496x496px|&#039;&#039;Figure 12. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng3.png|center|thumb|485x485px|&#039;&#039;Figure 13. Example of herd management report which describes the occurrence of first lesions over the course of the lactation within each lactation group.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimaggepng4.png|center|thumb|480x480px|&#039;&#039;Figure 14. An example of a herd management report which displays a list of not trimmed cows.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the list of not trimmed cows and cows showing lesions in the last three trimmings, respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng4.png|center|thumb|471x471px|&#039;&#039;Figure 15. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng6.png|center|thumb|479x479px|&#039;&#039;Figure 16. An example of herd management report which displays a list of cows with lesions in the last trimming sessions.&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for benchmarking and monitoring ==&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance and the need for improvement (Von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Barrientos, A., Ito, K., Galo, E., and Weary, D,M. 2012. Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: Lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95:7399–7408.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bradley &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley, A. J., J. E. Breen, C. D. Hudson, and M. J. Green. 2013. Benchmarking for health from the perspective of consultants. ICAR Technical Meeting Aarhus (Denmark), 29 – 31 May 2013. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.icar.org/index.php/icar-meetings-news/aarhus-2013&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Besides, it also helps to illustrate the potential benefits that improvements might offer; it can also motivate producers to adopt preventive practices and to foster the documentation of claw data. The success of any benchmarking process depends on the use of appropriate benchmarks. Incidence and prevalence rates are key parameters that can be used to make comparisons among and within herds over time (Dohoo &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dohoo I., Martin W. and Stryhn H. 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic research. 2nd Edition. Published by VER Inc. Canada. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health data should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the current status?&lt;br /&gt;
# Does the situation change and do I need to investigate further?&lt;br /&gt;
# Which age group and which lactation stage are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
# What is the gap between the current situation and the reference level?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A useful benchmarking report should be straightforward and concise, supported by clear and informative tables and charts showing a snapshot or a trend of incidence or prevalence rate. Figures as pie chart, bar chart and/or radial chart provide a graphical assessment of claw health status. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show examples of the Canadian DHI foot health benchmark report. Figure 17 displays the frequency of claw disorders within 12-month period and compare it with different benchmarks calculated for different group of animals (heifers, cows) and three different combinations of production systems (Free-stalls with robot, Freestalls with milking parlour, and Tie-stalls). Figure 18 displays a table with healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year at the herd, provincial, and national levels. The colored block indicates the range of the herd&#039;s percentile rank.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng7.png|center|thumb|472x472px|&#039;&#039;Figure 17. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Imageimagepng8.png|center|thumb|475x475px|&#039;&#039;Figure 18. An example of a report which displays a healthy/lesion count for each month and throughout the year.&#039;&#039; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of claw trimming data for genetic evaluation ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routine recording of claw health status at claw trimming provide valuable data for genetic evaluations. This section covers issues related to genetic evaluation of claw health, such as data sources, trait definitions, models and genetic parameters. For more detailed information we refer to the review paper by Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sources ===&lt;br /&gt;
Different sources of data and traits can be used to describe and evaluate claw health. The most reliable and comprehensive information is data from claw trimming, and use of these data is the scope of the guidelines. Possible indicator traits include veterinary diagnoses, data from lameness and locomotion scoring, activity-related information from sensors, and feet and legs conformation traits. Indicators may be useful in genetic evaluations, but this is not discussed here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definition ===&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders are usually defined as binary traits, based on whether or not the claw disorder was present (recorded) at least once during a defined time period (opportunity period), usually from calving to day 305 or end of lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Binary coding can be based on single specific disorders (i.e. each diagnosis is one trait) or groups or composite traits. Traits can be grouped according to aetiology and pathogenesis, e.g. infectious and non-infectious disorders, or grouping of all diagnoses as any (all) disorder. Grouping is often chosen in situations with limited data and/or low frequency of single disorders. If linear models are used the heritability will be higher for group traits than for the specific disorders as a result of higher frequency. Grouping might make comparisons for use in international evaluations difficult. Harmonized descriptions of individual disorders are important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, to take multiple occurrences into account can claw disorders be defined as the number of cases during a defined period time. This requires a clear definition of new cases. Also recording at the level of individual legs may be needed to accurately define new cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Claw health records from different parities can be treated as repeated measures of the same trait or as multiple traits. High genetic correlations justify treating claw disorders as the same trait across parities. There is a wide range of estimated correlation in the literature (e.g. van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; van der Spek &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van der Spek, D., J.A.M. van Arendonk, A.A.A. Vallée, and H. Bovenhuis. 2013. Genetic parameters for claw disorders and the effect of preselecting cows for trimming. J. Dairy Sci. 96:6070–6078. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-6833.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; so this should be checked in each case. Similarly, there is a question on whether the same disease occurring at different stages at lactation (e.g. early-, mid- and late lactation) should be assumed to be the same trait.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Which animals to define as cows with no claw disorders present (i.e. healthy herd mates) may be challenging as herd trimming strategies and recording practices vary. Ideally should all cows in a herd be trimmed and status of all cows, including those with normal/healthy claws, should be recorded at trimming. In most cases not all the cows be trimmed and there is a question whether non-trimmed cows should be included as healthy herd mates or excluded from the genetic analyses. Assuming that all non-trimmed cows are healthy underestimates the incidence of claw disorders (mild cases could be present, but not detected), while including only trimmed cows may overestimate the incidence (non-trimmed cows are more likely to be unaffected).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Key issues related to trait definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Binary trait or number of cases?&lt;br /&gt;
# Single specific disorders or groups/composite traits?&lt;br /&gt;
# Length of opportunity period?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across parities?&lt;br /&gt;
# Same trait across stage of lactation?&lt;br /&gt;
# Include or exclude non-trimmed cows?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Models ===&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in models for genetic evaluations of claw heath, in addition to standard effects such as age, contemporary group, and lactation number, include effects of time (lactation stage) at trimming and trimmer. The latter requires that a unique ID is recorded for each trimmer. Lactation stage at trimming can be the number of days or weeks between calving and trimming. The timing of the occurrence of disease probably is less accurate when based on claw trimming rather than veterinary treatment data. Depending on the herd’s claw-trimming routine there may be some time between the occurrence of a problem and the trimming day, and milder cases may go unnoticed until trimming. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The considerations regarding choice of model for genetic evaluation for claw health will be the same as for other categorical traits. Although more advanced models may be advantageous as they utilize more of the available information, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and gives in most cases very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic parameters ====&lt;br /&gt;
Heritability of the most commonly analysed claw disorders based on data from routine claw trimming were in general low (Table 22[1]), with linear model estimates ranging from 0.01 to 0.14 and threshold model estimates ranging from 0.06 to 0.39. For the composite trait overall claw health (any lesion) estimated heritability varied from 0.05 to 0.07 from linear model, and from 0.07 to 0.13 from threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 22. Range of heritability estimates for the most common claw disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Trait&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Threshold model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Linear model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Digital / interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09 - 0.20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Heel horn erosion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.03 - 0.07&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Interdigital hyperplasia&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.19 - 0.39&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole hemorrage&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.02 - 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.07 - 0.18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.06 - 0.10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimated genetic correlations among claw disorders varied from -0.40 to 0.98 (Table 23[2]). The strongest genetic correlations were found among sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL), and between digital/interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID) and heel horn erosion (HHE). Genetic correlations between DD/ID and HHE on the one hand and SH, SU, or WL on the other hand were low in most cases. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 23. Range of genetic correlation estimates among digital and/or interdigital dermatitis (DD/ID), heel horn erosion (HHE), interdigital hyperplasia (IH), sole hemorrhage (SH), sole ulcer (SU), and white line disease (WL) (from Heringstad et al, 2018&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;)&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;WL&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;DD/ID&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.58 - 0.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.66&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.15 - 0.12&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.19 - 0.56&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.33 - 0.08&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;HHE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.07 - 0.23&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.05 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.22 - 0.36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;IH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.40 - 0.13&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.08 - 0.50&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;-0.35 - 0.34&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SH&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.38 - 0.90&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.10 - 0.62&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;SU&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|0.01 - 0.98&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Implications ====&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible. However, the traits show low heritability and large scale routine recording is needed for reliable genetic evaluations. The genetic correlations to indicator traits like feet and leg conformation is low so direct selection based on genetic evaluation based on trimming data will be most efficient. As comprehensive recording of hoof trimming data is challenging it is recommended to use other direct or indirect information for genetic evaluation as well as for herd management.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Summary Check List ==&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines provide recommendations on recording, validation, monitoring and use of claw health data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data recording the minimum requirements should be: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Records on animal level &lt;br /&gt;
* Date of trimming &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trimmer-ID is highly recommended but not compulsory (it is essential for data validation but also very valuable for the use of the data). Other additional information could be useful as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording the location of the disorder/lesion: leg (e.g. left front leg), claw (inner or outer claw), positions (claw zones)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording of severity degree: e.g. mild, severe, M-stages for DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== 1.2.2        Data Validation ===&lt;br /&gt;
For data validation two steps have been defined: data screening and data verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before data entry in the database, the information should be screened in order to ensure completeness and correctness of the data. The check should include: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid claw disorder code&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid date &lt;br /&gt;
* Valid herd – ID (animal assigned at date of claw disorder to farm)&lt;br /&gt;
* Additional criteria for more optional recorded information (e.g. severity grades within range)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before conducting further analyses, data must be verified in order to ensure that the data is fitted for the intended use. That is why the check depends on the purpose of use and on the data sources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic Analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic analyses several editing criteria have been reported within each level of data. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At trimmer level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Minimum no of records per trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for continuity of data provision from trimmer&lt;br /&gt;
* Calculate incidence rates and variation per trimmer – see also training of hoof trimmers &lt;br /&gt;
* Check plausibility if data are generated by different persons &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At herd level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for valid herds (e.g. minimum % of trimmed cows)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At animal level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Correct animal-ID (see screening)&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for correct additional information &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At record level:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for new lesion or new case &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmark ===&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarks calculation editing criteria depending on the reference level (e.g. herd size, breed, management system, etc.) should be defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herds included should have a high percentage of cows presented at trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid observation period (e.g. with continuous data recording; minimum % of cows with disorders)&lt;br /&gt;
* Valid trimmers (e.g. continuous data provision; minimum amount of data within period; optional additional criteria)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Monitoring and Training ===&lt;br /&gt;
Monitoring and training process for data collectors is highly recommended in order to achieve a consistent collection process across persons and over time. Statistical analysis should include the calculation of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Frequencies/ incidence rates per trimmer. &lt;br /&gt;
* Heritability: the heritability estimated within each data collector can be used as criteria for the repeatability of scores within data collectors, albeit the optimum value is not unity but depends on the true heritability of each disorder.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic correlation: the genetic correlation between two data sets can be used as a measure of the repeatability between data collectors, where a genetic correlation of one between data collectors is expected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Use of claw health data ====&lt;br /&gt;
Data on the claw health status at cow or claw level are used for herd management, benchmarking and genetic analyses. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For herd management data from claw reports should answer the following questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the claw health status has changed or not?&lt;br /&gt;
* The timing (lactation/season) of the change?&lt;br /&gt;
* Which cows are affected?&lt;br /&gt;
* Whether the farms stated hoof trimming goals are being met?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is a useful tool which success depends on the use of appropriate key parameters and reference levels. Benchmarking reports should be able to answer the following questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the current performance?&lt;br /&gt;
* What is the position within the reference group?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic improvement of claw health is possible even though claw disorder traits show low heritability. A large scale routine recording system for claw trimming data is highly needed for reliable genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Acknowledgements ==&lt;br /&gt;
This document is the result of the work of the ICAR working group on functional traits (ICAR WGFT) together with internationally recognised claw experts. The members of the ICAR WGFT are, in alphabetical order: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrew John Bradley, Quality Milk Management Services, United Kingdom; andrew.bradley@qmms.co.uk&lt;br /&gt;
# Noureddine Charfeddine (Conafe, Spain) nouredine.charfeddine@conafe.com&lt;br /&gt;
# John B. Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA; John.Cole@ARS.USDA.GOV&lt;br /&gt;
# Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Austria; egger-danner@zuchtdata.at (chairperson)&lt;br /&gt;
# Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Belgium; nicolas.gengler@ulg.ac.be&lt;br /&gt;
# Bjorg Heringstad, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences / Geno , Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; bjorg.heringstad@umb.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Jennie Pryce, Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University, Agribio Building, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora Victoria 3083, Australia; jennie.pryce@agriculture.vic.gov.au&lt;br /&gt;
# Kathrin F. Stock, IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Verden, Germany; Friederike.Katharina.Stock@vit.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They were supported by the following claw health experts (in alphabetical order):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Maher Alsaaod, University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Clinic for Ruminants, Switzerland; maher.alsaaod@vetsuisse.unibe.ch&lt;br /&gt;
# Nick Bell, University of London, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; herdhealth@gmail.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Burgstaller, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria, johann.Burgstaller@vetmeduni.ac.at&lt;br /&gt;
# Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; nyc@sund.ku.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Anne-Marie Christen, Lactanet, Quebec, Canada; amchristen@lactanet.ca&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerald Cramer, University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA; gcramer@umn.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Gerben de Jong , CRV The Netherlands, Gerben.de.Jong@crv4all.com&lt;br /&gt;
# Dörte Döpfer, University of Wisconsin, School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, USA; dopferd@vetmed.wisc.edu&lt;br /&gt;
# Andrea Fiedler, veterinary practitioner, Munich, Germany; dr.andrea.fiedler@t-online.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Terje Fjelddas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; Terje.fjeldaas@nmbu.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal, Ruminants Health Department Health, Deventer, The Netherlands; m.holzhauer@gdvdieren.nl&lt;br /&gt;
# Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria; johann.kofler@vetmeduni.ac.at &lt;br /&gt;
# Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Clinic for Ruminants and Swine, Berlin, Germany; Kerstin-elisabeth.mueller@fu-berlin.de&lt;br /&gt;
# Hini Ruottu, Faba, Finland, hini.routtu@faba.fi&lt;br /&gt;
# Pia Nielsen, Seges, Denmark; pin@seges.dk&lt;br /&gt;
# Ase Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway; ase-margrethe.sogstad@tine.no&lt;br /&gt;
# Gilles Thomas, Institut de l’Elevage, France; gilles.thomas@idele.fr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The working group acknowledges the valuable contributions and support of all the authors and contributors to the ICAR Claw Health Atlas (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., P. Nielsen, A. Fiedler, A. Müller, T. Fjeldaas, D. Döpfer, V. Daniel, C. Bergsten, G. Cramer, A.-M. Christen, K.F. Stock, G. Thomas, M. Holzhauer, A. Steiner, J. Clarke, N. Capion, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, E. Oakes, J. Burgstaller, B. Heringstad, C. Ødegård, J. Kofler, F. Egger, and J.B. Cole. 2015. ICAR Claw Health Atlas. ICAR Technical Series. No. 18. International Committee for Animal Recording, Rome, Italy.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and the review paper: &#039;Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection&#039;, published in the Journal of Dairy Science (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegard, F. Machioldi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaaod and JB. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. TBC: 1-21 &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13531&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Special thanks to Noureddine Charfeddine who led the development of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 1: Risk factors for claw disorders ==&lt;br /&gt;
Claw disorders have a multifactor aetiology where risk factors for their occurrence could be deficiencies in housing systems and husbandry conditions, diet, hygiene, hoof trimming management, insufficient horn quality (for any reasons) as well as exposure to contagious agents and intoxications of certain minerals (Clarkson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Clarkson MJ, WB Faull, JW Hughes (1996): Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Vet Rec 138: 563-567.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Bergsten, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bergsten, C. (2001). Laminitis: Causes, Risk Factors, and Prevention, Texas Animal Nutrition Council. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;http://www.txanc.org/docs/BovineLaminitis.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; van der Linde &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010; Zinpro Corporation, 2014). A summary of the main risk factors related to the cow and related to the farm for infectious and non-infectious claw disorders are compiled in Table 24[1].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for other health conditions, the most critical period regarding occurrence of claw disorders is the time around calving; therefore, besides general improvement of the cow’s environment, optimization of the transition period can be seen as an important factor for prevention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A main farm risk factor for feet and legs problems is the type of surface the cows lay or walk on (Somers &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Somers J., Frankena K., Noordhuizen-Stassen E., Metz J. 2005. Risk factors for digital dermatitis in dairy cows kept in cubicle houses in The Netherlands. Prev. Vet. Med. 71: 11–21.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most systems in Europe and North America have prolonged periods of time throughout the year where cattle are confined indoors, often on solid concrete or slats and fed conserved diets. If cattle do not have enough space for sleeping, walking and moving freely, longer periods of standing negatively impact claw health. Housing systems that do not allow appropriate consideration of the social status due to overstocking or too narrow walking paths or too few or uncomfortable cubicles increase the risk for claw disorders (Holzhauer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Holzhauer M., Hardenberg C., Bartels C., Frankena K. Herd- and cow-level prevalence of digital dermatitis in the Netherlands and associated factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: 580–588. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Fiedler, 2015). Different roles of risk factors in pathways which lead to specific claw pathology may explain, why lower prevalence’s of foot lesions were reported for cows housed in tie stalls than for those housed in free stalls (Cramer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cramer, G. 2018. Personal communication.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Hygiene deficiencies on farm as well as contact between cows from different herds increase the risk for claw disorders related to infections like DD. Repeated contact to infectious agents may also contribute to the not consistently lower prevalence of claw disorders in cows with than without access to pasture: Regularly passed alleyways and too small pasture size bear the risk of cross-contamination, whereas claw health should generally benefit from opportunities of free movement on natural ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some types of claw disorders are associated with diet composition. Rations with a high level of easily digestible carbohydrates and a high percentage of protein together with a low level of fibre may result in a disturbance of the digestion and increased risk of claw disorders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The occurrence of claw disorders is also influenced by genetics, with some variation between the specific disorders. Therefore, in addition to improving management and nutrition, breeding for improved claw health is an important way of stabilizing and improving claw health. Breeding measures have the potential to achieve sustainable progress if enough emphasis is put on these traits in the breeding goal and the breeding program. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 24. Risk factors and their associated claw disorders.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Type of disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Risk factors&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Preventive and risk effects&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Associated disorders&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;6&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Immunity system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Around calving cows suffer stress and a depression of immunity system which favour the spread of infectious disorders. Young animals are most at risk as they have less developed immunity system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holstein-Friesian cows are more susceptible than other breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The individual immunity response has been reported as a preventive factor against infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stall design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pen size&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Parlour capacity&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort maximizes lying times and reduces stress. Reduces also contact with manure. Good stall design facilitates the cleaning process.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow hygiene&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dry environment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slurry free environment&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Cleanliness reduces contact between pathogen and host.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents introduction of infectious pathogens&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Access to pasture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straw yard&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Access to pasture or straw yard reduces infectious disorders and accelerate healing process&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Diet affect immunity system mainly at early calving&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital phlegmon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct foot bath routine&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Foot bathing aid in prevention of the initial infection and reduce the development of complicate infections&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Digital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel erosion&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interdigital dermatitis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Non-Infectious disorders&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow-related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Calving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Age&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breed&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Disruptions to the growth of horn around the time of calving, which can lead to poor-quality horn formation&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole hemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Farm related factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow comfort &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximizing lying times &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comfortable lying surface &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces wear on the sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces pressure on the feet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces damage to the bony prominences&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock damage/swelling&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Housing system&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Tied animals show less hoof lesions than those in loose housing. Free-stall barns mean long walking distances between the cubicles, feeding and drinking stations and the milking parlour. Good design and good walking surfaces might be the mitigate factors&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Flooring system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walking and standing surfaces&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Rough and abrasive walking and standing surfaces lead to excessive wear and too smooth surfaces lead to slipping. Concrete floor has been shown to increase claw horn disorders. Rubberized walking surfaces in the feed alleys have been proven as preventive measures.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heel ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double sole&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Social and physical integration for heifers and dry cows &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Reduces defensive movements Avoids cow to cow confrontation. Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Cow flow on the farm &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good routes around Buildings &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To pasture &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To feed &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Allow a cow to express normal gait&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces defensive movements from humans to avoid confrontation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reduces standing times&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Improves eating and drinking behaviour&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diet &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Macronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Micronutrients &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Not only the diet composition, but also the way it is prepared and fed. The reduction of ruminal acidosis and macro and micronutrient deficiencies or excesses improves hoof horn quality and integrity.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Correct routine professional functional preventive hoof trimming &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Corrects abnormal growth of the hoof horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents excessive/abnormal wear&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prevents areas of deep sole horn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interrupts vicious circle of increased horn production&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Balances the weight load on lateral &amp;amp; medial claw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Avoids high loading of localized areas of the sole&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Sole haemorrhage&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concave dorsal wall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hock fissure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White line disease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sole ulcer&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annex 2: Prevalence rates for claw disorders for different breeds in several countries ==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 25 shows prevalence rates for claw disorders calculated in different countries during 2015. In Finland, prevalence rates are calculated for Ayrshire and Holstein breed, while in The Netherlands parameters are calculated making distinction between first parity and multi-parity cows. Prevalence rates show a large variation between countries and illustrate some of the problems associated with between herd benchmarking. These differences could be explained by several reasons: Firstly, differences in the reporting level for some disorders, in fact within the same country the recording could be different across trimmers or practitioners. Secondly, the definition of claw disorders may not be completely the same. Thirdly, differences of the percentage of cows recruited for trimming. Finally, housing systems and weather conditions are different in these countries&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 25. Annual prevalence rates of claw disorders calculated in different countries and for different breeds and group of cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Denmark&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Finland&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;France&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Netherlands&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Spain&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sweden&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Hyperplasia (IH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |11.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:6.0;HF:2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Asymmetric Claws (AC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Corkscrew Claws (CC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  8.6. HOL: 6.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.7&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Concave Dorsal Wall (CD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0,0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.76&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Digital Dermatitis (DD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.8. HOL: 1.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |29.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:23.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |9.42&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Double Sole (DS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.4. HOL: 1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horn Fissure (HF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Vertical Horn Fissure (HFV)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Horizontal Horn Fissure (HFH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |10&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Axial Vertical Fissure (HFA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |11&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Heel Horn Erosion (HHE)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |10.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.2. HOL: 11.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |54.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |12&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Dermatitis (ID)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.5. HOL: 2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.41&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:17.8;HF:10.6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |13&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Interdigital Phlegmon (IP)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.4. HOL: 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |14&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Scissors Claws (SC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL 0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |15&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Hemorrhage (SH)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |20.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  16.4. HOL: 19.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:24.2;HF:23.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |17.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |16&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Diffused Form (SHD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |43.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |17&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Circumscribed Form (SHC)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |16.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |18&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Sole Ulcer (SU)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |6.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  3.0. HOL: 5.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |5.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:10.7;HF:4.0&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |12.87&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |4.8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |19&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Typical Sole Ulcer (SUTY)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |20&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Bulb Ulcer (SUB)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |21&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Ulcer (SUTO)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  0.1. HOL: 0.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |22&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Toe Necrosis (TN)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.7&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |1.8&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |23&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Swelling of the Coronet and/or the Bulb (SW)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |24&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Thin Sole (TS)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |White Line Disease (WLD)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |15.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:21.0;HF:12.9&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.85&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |26&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Fissure (WLF)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |8.2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  10.1. HOL: 13.1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |27&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |WL Abscess/Ulcer (WLA)&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |2.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AY:  1.0. HOL: 1.5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |All lesions&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |COWS:61.9;  HF:43.4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |30.51&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[1] Mülling &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mülling C.K.W., L. Green, Z. Barker, J. Scaife, J. Amory, M. Speijers. 2005. Risk factors associated with foot lameness in dairy cattle and a suggested approach for lameness reduction. World Buiatrics Congress, Nice, France.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Palmer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015; Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Lameness in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== About this Guideline ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Guidelines for recording lameness in dairy cattle give an overview of the most common systems of lameness scoring and recording in dairy cows. They are important components of lameness control strategies on dairy farms. Lameness scoring, when applied on a regular basis, allows detection and treatment of lame individuals at an early stage of disease. Collected data can be used to evaluate the herd’s lameness control strategy and provide information for further analyses and research. The guidelines include considerations and recommendations for improved lameness recording in the context of a herd health management program, animal welfare, benchmarking and genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness scoring will be used in this document. Other terms such as locomotion scoring, mobility scoring, and gait behaviour or gait assessment are used for similar traits. These are distinct from locomotion scoring as referred to [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 05]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommendations of Lameness Recording Practices ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;SYSTEM&#039;&#039;&#039;: A five-scale system (1 to 5) which considers different aspects of posture and gait (arched back, head bob and signs of weight bearing on non-affected limbs) – Table 26. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;USERS&#039;&#039;&#039;: Dairy farmers, veterinarians, hoof trimmers, dairy advisors and farm employees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HOW MANY: If cows are housed in pens, the number of animals selected for assessment should be proportional to the number of cows in each pen. A strategic sampling would be to assess cows from the middle of the milking order; the number being associated to the size of the herd. On large pasture-based herds, it is recommended that the last 200 cows should be assessed as a screening test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Score lameness on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface on which the cows are expected to walk normally or familiar to. While cows are walking, the assessor should view the animals from the side. Cows must not be assessed when they are turning. Animals to be assessed should be randomly chosen. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WHEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: Assessing cows after milking is the best time for scoring lameness. The environmental conditions should be as calm as possible to allow cows to walk as they would normally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;HOW OFTEN&#039;&#039;&#039;: For herd management: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optimally, every two weeks, at least once a month;&lt;br /&gt;
* For early detection of hoof health problems: weekly or every two weeks is recommended;&lt;br /&gt;
* If monthly assessment is not feasible and if no routine claw trimming is taking place: at dry-off and at the beginning of lactation.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; For genetic evaluation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If possible, use of data collected for herd management (single or multiple records per cow and lactation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;KNOW-HOW&#039;&#039;&#039;: Short theoretical instructions on the description of the five lameness categories and practical basic training is needed. Annual training of assessors is highly recommended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness scores&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Behavioural criteria&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|&#039;&#039;&#039;Walking&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1 - Normal&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  and walks with a flat back posture. Smooth and fluid movement, the gait is  normal. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints flex freely&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady as the animal moves&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:1.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:12.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2 – Mildly  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow stands  with a level-back posture but develops an arched-back posture while walking.  The ability to move freely not diminished. &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* All legs bear weight equally Joints slightly stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:2.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:22.png|center|thumb|246x246px]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3 – Moderately  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is evident while both standing and walking. The gait is affected and  is best described as short striding with one or more limbs. Capable of  locomotion but ability to move freely is compromised.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slight limp can be discerned in one limb but the lameness is often  bilateral&lt;br /&gt;
* Joints show signs of stiffness but do not impede freedom of  movement. Shorter strides&lt;br /&gt;
* Head carriage remains steady&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:33.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:32.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4 - Lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An arched-back  posture is always evident and gait is best described as one deliberate step  at a time. The cow favors one or more limbs/feet. Ability to move freely is  obviously diminished.&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Reluctant to bear weight on at least one limb but still uses that  limb in locomotion&lt;br /&gt;
* Strides are hesitant and deliberate, and joints are stiff&lt;br /&gt;
* Head bobs slightly as animal moves in accordance with the sore  limb/hoof making contact with the ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:4.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:42.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |5 – Severely  lame&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The cow  additionally demonstrates an inability or extreme reluctance to bear weight  on one or more of her limbs/feet. Ability to move is severely restricted.  Must be vigorously encouraged to stand and/or move.  &lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Extreme arched back when standing and walking&lt;br /&gt;
* Obvious joint stiffness characterized by lack of joint flexion  with very hesitant and deliberate strides&lt;br /&gt;
* One or more strides obviously shortened&lt;br /&gt;
* Head obviously bobs as sore limb/hoof makes contact with the  ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:5.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:52.png|center|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;:Ref.: Sprecher et al. 1997&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;/ Source of the pictures: Zinpro First Step®: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Locomotor diseases causing lameness are widely recognised as one of the most serious welfare issues for dairy cattle and they represent substantial costs for dairy farmers (von Keyserlingk &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé, and D. M. Weary. 2009. Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle-key concepts and the role of science. J. Dairy Sci. 92:4101–4111.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness indicates pain or discomfort during locomotion and is characterized by a change in gait or an irregularity of the walking pattern. Lameness is most often caused by claw and/or leg disorders reflecting the attempt of the animal to reduce the amount of weight bearing on the affected limb(s). Therefore, lameness is considered as an indicator of an underlying problem that often causes pain (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness is associated to lower dry matter intake, impaired milk production and reproduction, and can lead to early culling. Thus, by reducing a cow’s mobility, overall health and welfare are impacted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of lameness cases in dairy cattle are related to lesions of the claws, infectious or non-infectious (Toussaint Raven, 1978), that induce pain. According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, 80-90% of causes of lameness in cattle are located in the distal limb. Claw diseases occur most frequently in the first 3-5 months post-partum. In North American dairy herds, the main causes of lameness are sole ulcers, white line disease, toe ulcers, digital dermatitis, foot rot, and thin soles (Bicalho &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bicalho, R. C., V. S. Machado, and L. S. Caixeta. 2009. Lameness in dairy cattle: A debilitating disease or a disease of debilitated cattle? A cross-sectional study of lameness prevalence and thickness of the digital cushion. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3175–3184. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Sanders &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sanders, A. H., J. K. Shearer, and A. De Vries. 2009. Seasonal incidence of lameness and risk factors associated with thin soles, white line disease, ulcers, and sole punctures in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 92:3165-3174. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; DeFrain &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;DeFrain, J. M., M. T. Socha, and D. J. Tomlinson. 2013. Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 99: 7329-7339. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a field study done in 2013 and 2014 by University of Calgary, Canada, veterinarians looked at the relationship between claw lesions and lameness in 10 dairy farms (Douglas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas M., L. Solano and K. Orsel. 2019. The surprising relationship between lameness and hoof lesions. Progressive Dairyman, 31st May. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Results showed that on average, 20% of cows were lame. A lesion was present in 94% of all lame cows and in 84% of non-lame cows. A cow with a lesion was almost three times more likely to be lame than a cow without a lesion. Results suggest that a cow with a sole ulcer or a white-line lesion was 12 to 13 times more likely to be identified as lame, whereas a cow with digital dermatitis (DD) was three times more likely to be identified as lame. The fact that six to eight weeks pass before damage of the corium becomes visible at the sole horn explains the low correlation between lesion presence and lameness detection. In this study, 84% of non-lame cows showed a lesion, putting them at higher risk for becoming lame.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The type of lesion influences lameness prevalence differently; cows with a sole ulcer or white-line lesion having a greater chance of being identified as lame than those with DD. Then, recording claw lesions during trimming would be an optimal practice for monitoring and preventing more serious claw diseases or limb disorders. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, prevention methods such as frequent lameness scoring are effective for: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Early detection of claw lesions and feet and leg disorders;&lt;br /&gt;
* Monitoring lameness prevalence;&lt;br /&gt;
* Comparing lameness incidence and severity between herds;&lt;br /&gt;
* Targeting individual cows that need hoof trimming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potential underlying conditions causing lameness include joint disorders (e.g. arthritis, arthrosis, luxation), diseases of muscles and tendons (e.g. myositis, tendinitis), and neurological diseases (e.g. neuritis, paralysis). Genetics can play a role for occurrence of lameness through disposition to aforementioned disorders or malformations such as corkscrew claws or similar deformations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment of the cows can increase the risk of lameness such as housing, including type of flooring, and herd management practices (Solano &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Solano, L., H. W. Barkema. E. A. Pajor, S. Mason, S. LeBlanc, J. C. Zaffino Heyerhoff, C. G. R. Nash, D. B. Haley, E. Vasseur, D. Pellerin, J. Rushen, A. M. de Passillé and K. Orsel. 2015. Prevalence of lameness and associated risk factors in Canadian Holstein-Friesian cows housed in free stall barns. J. Dairy Sci. 98:6978–6991. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In Australia, New Zealand and South America where the dairy industry is predominantly pasture-based, cows may often walk several kilometres and stand for several hours per day in a crowded concrete yard while they wait to be milked. The potential for lameness to negatively affect animal welfare is of ongoing concern (Beggs et al., 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Hund et al, 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hund, A., Chiozza Logroño, J., Ollhoff, R.D., Kofler, J. 2019. Aspects of lameness in pasture based dairy systems. Vet. J. 244: 83–90.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Pressure applied when walking down to dairy and when in the yard from excessive/incorrect use of backing gate may induce lameness. Cows should be left to walk to and away from the dairy at their own pace and the backing gate should be used only to fill space in the yard - not to push cows up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The risks factors most commonly associated with lameness are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking and standing on concrete, especially wet and rough;&lt;br /&gt;
* Walking long distance on poor walking surfaces; &lt;br /&gt;
* Lack or absence of appropriate bedding and bad hygiene;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poorly designed stalls;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens;&lt;br /&gt;
* Pressure applied when walking to and away from the dairy and incorrect use of backing gate;&lt;br /&gt;
* Overcrowded pens and poor cow traffic;&lt;br /&gt;
* Infrequent and/or incorrect claw trimming;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient monitoring that results in late detection of cows requiring additional care;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poor management, particularly of transition cows;&lt;br /&gt;
* Insufficient body condition (&amp;lt;2; Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2015 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, L. E. Green, and J. N. Huxley. 2015. Low body condition predisposes cattle to lameness: An 8-year study of one dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 98:3766–3777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;/ For reference, see the [[Section 05 – Conformation Recording|Section 5]] of the ICAR Guidelines for conformation recording);&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity;&lt;br /&gt;
* Physical hazards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Preventing lameness helps to optimize milk production, improves conception rates and animal welfare and reduces treatment costs and antibiotic use. Consequently, it lowers stress level in both, cows and dairy farmers. However, improving gait/locomotion requires detailed information on individual lameness cases and informative records helping to identify causative factors that need to be eliminated or corrected.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe lameness cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders are demonstrated to be related to certain risk factors, recordings obtained at routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allows for targeting on-farm risk assessment enabling farmers to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lameness Scoring Methods ==&lt;br /&gt;
Subjective methods are currently used for assessing cows on farms, and the results are described as numerical rating scores. It rates individual cows for the presence or absence of certain behaviours and postures related to gait. These scoring systems focus mainly on locomotion or gait associated with the degree of reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) with five, four or even only two categories (Brenninkmeyer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brenninkmeyer, C., S. Dippel, S. March, J. Brinkmann, C. Winckler and U. Knierim. 2007. Reliability of a subjective lameness scoring system for dairy cows. Animal Welfare 16:127–129.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over time, results from different studies show that subjective scoring can be applied consistently within and among observers, especially if the scoring system provides a detailed definition of each category and if the observers/assessors have been trained (Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C. and D. M. Weary. 2009. Gait assessment in dairy cattle. Animal 3:1, pp 87–95. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Despite lack of precision, simple recording of lame animals by dairy farmers, advisors or veterinarians may be the easiest system for recording lameness on a routine basis. However, it is most reliable for cows that are either moderately lame, lame or severely lame (Sogstad &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sogstad Å. M., T. Fjeldaas and O. Østerås. 2012. Locomotion score and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows assessed by claw trimmers. Livestock Science, Vol. 144, p.157-162.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Lameness scoring should be seen as a complement to the recording of claw health information during routine claw trimming for early detection of individual cows with problems in between trimmings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording lameness may be performed on different levels of specificity and for different purposes. According to the objectives, some systems refer as being either a lameness scoring system or a mobility scoring system. A specific system is used for scoring lameness in tie-stall barns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Sprecher system: Scale of 1 to 5 ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most popular systems for scoring lameness rely on the Sprecher system. This is a five-point scale system widely recognised and used worldwide due to its simplicity and the observation of the presence of behaviours such as an arched back when standing and walking (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). This scoring system, where 1 is «normal» and 5 is «severely lame», is non-invasive and easily applied under farm conditions with short theoretical instructions and subsequent practical training. It allows more individuals to perform this assessment such as dairy farmers and their employees, veterinarians, hoof trimmers and advisors. Then, this scoring information can be used for herd management and early detection of lameness.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A similar approach uses behavioural variables or production variables as indicators for impaired gait (Schlageter-Tello &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schlageter-Telloa, A., E. A. M. Bokkers, P. W. G. Groot Koerkampa, T. Van Hertemd, S. Viazzid, C. E. B. Romaninid, I. Halachmie, C. Bahrd, D. Berckmansd, and K. Lokhorsta. 2014. Manual and automatic locomotion scoring systems in dairy cows: A review. Prev. Vet. Med. 116:12–25.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;: Dairy Lameness Assessment and Prevention Program» uses that 1 to 5 scale to assess the severity of dairy cattle lameness. It is based on the observation of cows standing and walking (gait), with a special emphasis on their back posture. A combination of the Sprecher system and the «Zinpro First Step&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;®&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;» is presented in Table 1 and is the reference standard proposed for the current Guidelines. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, in large herds such in Australia and New Zealand, a similar system is used where 0 means «Walks evenly» and 3, «Very lame». This system called «mobility scoring system» is also used in the UK and the US and is summarized at APPENDIX 1. A correspondence can be made between the mobility scoring system and the one presented on Table 26 where:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Mobility Scoring System&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 26&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 0: Walks evenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 1: Walks unevenly&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 2: Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;| Score 3: Very lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;| Score 5: Severely Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are other scoring or assessment systems used in different countries and for different purposes and they are described in 5.11 (Appendix 1): &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* «Welfare Quality Network» with a scale of 0 to 2;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «König-Garcia mobility score»;&lt;br /&gt;
* «Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Some considerations for recording lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Training of the observers ===&lt;br /&gt;
Training is the main factor assuring proper performance of the observers at lameness scoring. Improved agreement across observers is obtained as more cows are assessed (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;March, S., J. Brinkmann and C. Winkler. 2007. Effect of training on the inter-observer reliability of lameness scoring in dairy cattle. Anim. Welfare 16:131–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In this study, the authors suggested that 200 to 300 cows are sufficient numbers to score for reaching the acceptance threshold for agreement and reliability when using a five-scale system. Even after obtaining the acceptance threshold, observers should receive periodic training to avoid any “drift” which refers to the tendency of observers to change over time how they apply the definition of a measurement. A periodic training would be defined by once or twice a year alternating between practical exercise and online training for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally, training is crucial for achieving high agreement levels. It should be designed depending on the level of precision that is required. For example, the integration of a 5-scale gait scoring system into on-farm welfare assessment protocols is seen as justified, if adequate practical learning phase is assured (March &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:3&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). However, Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; demonstrated that contrary to the current belief, the highest level of experience was not necessarily associated with a higher chance of perfect agreement. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How many animals should be assessed? ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to recognise that the ideal approach to assess the levels of lameness within a milking herd is to assess all cows. This approach highlights the potential animal welfare benefits of formal and systematic lameness scoring of dairy herds for improving identification and treatment of lame cows (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010; Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have shown that random sampling during milking conveys limited practical benefits and oblige the assessor to be present throughout the milking (Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2010). Farm size may be a barrier to farmers participating in lameness scoring of the whole herd. A simpler alternative sampling strategy would be an incentive to do it more frequently. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Main &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2010) suggested a sampling based on getting within 5% of the true prevalence (Table 27). This study suggested that sampling herds from the middle of the milking order on most farms would seem most appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 27. Sampling based on the quadratic equation that best explained the sample size needed to get within 5% of the true prevalence based on sampling cows from the middle of the milking order.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Herd size&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Sample size*&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|25&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|20&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|50&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|30&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|40&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|100&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|125&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|57&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|150&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|64&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|200&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|75&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|225&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|79&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|250&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|82&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|275&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|84&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|300&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|85&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;Sample size = −0.001n2 + 0.498n + 6.785, where n = number of cows in milking herd.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In large pasture-based herds, Beggs &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beggs, D. S., E. C. Jongman, P. H. Hemsworth and A. D. Fisher. 2019. Lame cows on Australian dairy farms: A comparison of farmer-identified lameness and formal lameness scoring, and the position of lame cows within the milking order. J. Dairy Sci.102:1522–1529.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; indicate that lameness scoring at least 200 cows at the end of the milking order would give some confidence that the overall lameness prevalence is correct. This number is useful as a screening test, identifying herds that were likely to have lameness prevalence above a given threshold. Presence of severely lame cows at the end of milking order may also be useful for identifying those farms likely to benefit from further support. But on a practical point of view, this recommendation would require dedicating resources on that specific task. Farmers are taught to look for lame cows every time they come into milking, at milking and when walking out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Walking surface and location ===&lt;br /&gt;
Several studies indicate that the surface conditions in the walking area (soil and flooring) can have profound effects on gait. In a study, gait of cows walking on sand was compared to gait on slatted and solid concrete flooring. On slatted concrete floor, cows walked more slowly with considerably shortened strides and with the rear feet placed at greater distance behind the front ones. On the solid concrete floor, cows took shorter strides and steps than on the sand surface, but the speed did not differ significantly. Rubber mats on concrete floor increased the length of strides and steps and had a positive effect on locomotion in both, lame and non-lame cows (Telezhenko &amp;amp; Bergsten, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Telezhenko, E. and C. Bergsten. 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. App. Ani. Beh. Sci. 93:183–197.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concrete is not an ideal surface for dairy cows to walk on despite it being the most common surface found on farms. It could lack sufficient grip for cows to move around comfortably without fear of slipping. Grooving is therefore essential for a good traction, but a compromise has to be struck between sufficient grooves for allowing traction and too many grooves that would cause excessive wear (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rubber flooring provides a more secure footing and is softer and more comfortable to walk on, especially for lame cattle (Flower &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., A. M. de Passillé, D. M. Weary, D. J. Sanderson, and J. Rushen. 2007. Softer, higher-friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. J. Dairy Sci. 90:1235–1242.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consequently, lameness scoring should be performed with cows walking on a flat, firm, and non-slippery surface. To gain consistency and reliability of scores on subsequent visits on the same farm ideally the same way, the same location and same walking surface should be used for scoring. For example, when the parlour exiting routine becomes disrupted, cows will often not show their normal behaviour and are more likely to conceal lameness (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Groenevelt, M., D. C. J. Main, D. Tisdall, T. G. Knowles and N. J. Bell. 2014. Measuring the response to therapeutic foot trimming in dairy cow with fortnightly lameness scoring. Vet. J. 201:283-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How often and when ===&lt;br /&gt;
To correctly identify new cases of lameness and for early detection of claw health problems, it is preferable if monitoring of lameness is performed every two weeks (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). Several studies concluded that lameness and locomotion scores may be useful indicator traits for claw health (Laursen &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Laursen, M. V., D. Boelling and T. Mark. 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 92:1770-1777.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Decreased assessment frequency can make it more difficult to adequately identify new lame animals (Eriksson &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2020 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eriksson, H. K., R. R. Daros, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2020. Effects of case definition and assessment frequency on lameness incidence estimates. J. Dairy Sci. 103 – Article in Press. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;– In press). In addition to lameness assessment every two weeks, immediate treatment of lame cows will lead to reduced lameness prevalence. Early treatment of lame dairy cows results in the development of less severe claw lesions, increasing the chance of full recovery and decreased the amount of time an animal was lame (Groenevelt &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:4&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the near future, new technical advances (e.g. sensors. pedometers or accelerometers) could make it possible to monitor the gait of dairy cows in real time such that lame cows could be treated immediately (Haladjian &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haladjian, J., J. Haug, S. Nüske, and B. Bruegge. 2018. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2:27.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Examples of behaviours that may be associated with lameness include walking speed, lying time, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is especially important to assess lameness at dry off and at the beginning of lactation if no routine claw trimming is taking place in the herd. If there are lesions, it is important that these can heal during the dry period such that the animal does not enter a new lactation with existing foot health problems. As not all claw disorders are correlated to lameness, claw trimming is recommended when cows enter the dry period and at approximately two months post-partum (Kofler, 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2015. Klauenerkrankungen in Österreich – Wirtschafliche Aspekte, Häufigkeiten, Erkennung &amp;amp; fütterungsbedingte ursachen. ZAR Seminar, Vienna, Austria. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). In a study, Ahlén &amp;amp; Fjeldaas (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ahlén L. and T. Fjeldaas. 2019. Digital dermatitis and lameness: An evaluation of locomotion scoring as a tool to detect and control the disease. Proc. 20th Int. Symp. and 12th Int. Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Asakusa, Japan, p. 200.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that locomotion scoring was insufficient to detect and control digital dermatitis in Norwegian free stall herds and that inspection in trimming chutes was necessary to detect the disease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most suitable time to assess lameness is right after milking because it is more compatible with normal farm work routines. The assessment should not disrupt cows outflow routine to be sure they keep a normal behaviour. To support that practice, results reported by Flower &amp;amp; Weary (2006)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that for cows with and without sole ulcer, the differences in gait before and after milking were evident. After milking, all cows had a significant improved gait. This change was probably due to udder distention and/or motivation to return to the home pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the use of detailed information from veterinarians (for more severe cases) and hoof trimmers (screening data and less severe cases) may allow deeper insight into improvement options. As various disorders seem to be related to certain risk factors, information obtained during routine claw trimming and treatment of lame cows allow for targeting on-farm risk assessment in order to alleviate or even eliminate potential risk factors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How to Score Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Including lameness scoring in routine herd management is the most practical way for detecting lameness in dairy cattle on farms. This method or practice can be used in free-stall or other types of loose-housing systems and in tie-stall systems where cattle are routinely exercised, if practical. The lameness scores are ideally entered into a herd management software or can be recorded using a board and a paper recording sheet. Appendix 2 presents two examples of data recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a free-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identify a suitable location&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often the easiest location on the farm is the passage between the milking parlour and the pens. The criteria for choosing an adequate location are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Distance allows observation of cattle walking for four strides (minimum of two strides);&lt;br /&gt;
* Surface is smooth/flat and allows long confident strides without slippage;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid slatted concrete surfaces if possible;&lt;br /&gt;
* Avoid sloped flooring (downward or upward) or alleys with steps. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If cattle have been released from tie-stalls for allowing the scoring, habituate them to walking by walking up and down a passageway in a calm manner until the cattle walk in a straight line at a steady pace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Identification of the animal&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Ear tag number;&lt;br /&gt;
* Neck number.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Lameness score the cow&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Observe at least four strides for each animal and record the degree of limping/reluctance of bearing weight on the affected limb(s) of the cow. Score and record information on the data-scoring sheet. Appendix 2 presents examples of recording sheets. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Instructions for a tie-stall barn ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Assess standing cows&lt;br /&gt;
* Encourage all cows to be assessed to stand for at least 3 minutes before their assessment begins. Do not score if the cow urinates or defecates during the assessment.&lt;br /&gt;
* Identification of the animal&lt;br /&gt;
* Record the identification of the cow to be assessed in the data-recording sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe&lt;br /&gt;
* Observe the cow for lameness. The assessment consists of two parts:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;A. Assessment of foot placement –  Standing Pose&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Observe the foot position and  placement of the cow for a full 10 seconds in each of the following three  positions:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Directly behind the cow such  that both legs are visible (about 0,5-1m behind the stall)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Left of the cow for a  side-view of both legs&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |•       Right of the cow.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Record the presence of EDGE,  SHIFT and REST indicators for each position (Ref.: Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;B. Shifting of the cow from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |1.        Position yourself behind the  cow with a view of both front and hind feet.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |2.       Ask the producer to shift the  cows from side to side:&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|a.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       First walk from the right to  the left behind the cow and then back to the right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|b.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If the cow does not respond  to your movement, repeat this while tapping her hip bone, with your hand, on  the side opposite to where you want her to move (i.e. If you want her to move  left, tap her right hip bone)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       If this still does not work,  poking gently with the tip of a pen may replace a tap.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |3.       Pay attention to how the cow  shifts weight from foot to foot&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|d.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe if the UNEVEN  indicator is present. This can be identified as a reluctance to bear weight  on a particular foot*[1]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|e.         &lt;br /&gt;
|•       Observe the foot position and  placement and the presence of EDGE, SHIFT and REST indicators resumed after  movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |4.       Record presence of behavioural  indicators in the Data Recording Sheets.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Score cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded. Record either «Lame» or «Not lame» on the recording data-sheet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of Lameness Data ==&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd Management ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable information for early detection of claw problems. Claw trimming data are essential for the identification of the specific problem(s) and for targeting corrective measures (Fjeldaas &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2011&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fjeldaas, T., Å. M. Sogstad and O. Østerås. 2011. Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in free stalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci. 94:1243-1255. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Kofler, 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kofler, J. 2013. Computerised claw trimming database programs – the basis for monitoring hoof health in dairy herds. Vet. J. 198: 358–361.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). According to Green &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2002)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Green, L. E., V. J. Hedges, Y. H. Schukken, R. W. Blowey, and A. J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:2250–2256.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, lameness prevalence is highest in early lactation cows. In Austria, a study related to the «Efficient Cow Project» (Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) involving about 7,000 cows with lameness records assessed according to the Sprecher system at each milk recording test across a lactation, revealed rather stable incidences across the lactation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Randall &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randall L. V., M. J. Green, L. E. Green, M. G. G. Chagunda, C. Mason, S. C. Archer, and J. N. Huxley. 2018. The contribution of previous lameness events and body condition score to the occurrence of lameness in dairy herds: A study of 2 herds. J. Dairy Sci. 101:1311–1324.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, between 79 and 83% of lameness events were estimated to be attributable to all previous lameness events and between 9 and 21% attributable to exposure to lameness events that occurred at least 16 weeks previously. Then, preventing the first case of lameness could potentially be important in avoiding an escalation of repeated lameness events. In addition, findings from this study highlight that early and effective treatment of lameness reducing the likelihood of recurrence or cases becoming chronic may also be crucial to lameness control at a herd level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Benchmarking ===&lt;br /&gt;
A precondition for the use of lameness records for benchmarking, herd management and genetic evaluation is the storage of the information collected on farms into a central data base.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benchmarking is important for herd management as it ranks the farm amongst its peers and it helps identifying where improvement is needed. However, to be able to compare herds, the frequency of assessment, the stage of lactation and the recording scheme itself need to be considered. Animals at risk need to be defined based on the strategy of data recording. If assessment of lameness is done every month or even more often, the frequency will most likely be higher compared to an assessment that is done once in lactation, or once a year at herd level. Therefore, the interpretation of results needs to take into account the circumstances of recording. The reference population will need to be defined and the criteria for claw health considered. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Welfare ===&lt;br /&gt;
It is well recognised that lameness is a painful experience for the cow (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., A. E. Waterman and A. J. F. Webster. 1997. Associations between locomotion, claw lesions and nociceptive threshold in dairy heifers during the peri-partum period. Vet. J. 154:155-161.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), causing loss of milk yield, poor fertility and body condition. The presence of lame and ill cattle in the milk-producing herd erodes consumer confidence in dairy farmers and farming practices. Despite increased awareness of lameness in relation to welfare and lost productivity, no studies reported a reduction in the prevalence of lameness over the last 20 years (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). There are a number of barriers to improvement in the prevalence of lameness. Firstly, dairy farmers must recognise lameness. Studies have shown that without training, farmers will detect mainly the severely lame cows (Whay &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2003&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Whay, H. R., D. C. J. Main, L. E. Green and A. J. F. Webster. 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet. R. 153:197-202. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Secondly, dairy farmers must find the time to observe the locomotion of all their cattle at frequent intervals. For them, shortage of time is a major obstacle to the use of visual lameness scoring as a tool for reducing lameness (Leach &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., D. A. Tisdall, N. J. Bell, D. C. J. Main and L. E. Green. 2010. The effects of early treatment for hind limb lameness in dairy cows on four commercial UK farms. Vet. J. 193:626-632. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, providing dairy farmers with training to detect all states of lameness, and the use of incentives for reducing lameness would improve the situation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To encourage dairy farmers to carry out lameness assessments, a number of organisations included lameness assessments within a welfare assessment scheme. Among those organisations are increasing numbers of retailers, milk processors and other food groups that now include aspects of animal welfare in their assessment schemes. The schemes are designed to provide assurance to the consumers about the standards of animal welfare. Lameness is one of the most commonly used welfare indicators in these schemes. Recording lameness as an indicator of welfare is a very valuable method to raise awareness and its negative impact for the dairy farmers and the public. However, there is a variation between schemes in the scale used for scoring animals, some only score a limited proportion of the herd and some do not record the identity of the animal, which are aspects that require improvement for allowing wider use of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Lameness records are valuable auxiliary traits for genetic improvement and should, if possible, be combined with claw trimming records, veterinary diagnoses and other existing information (e.g., culling for claw health, linear scoring) as lameness information itself does not give an indication of the causative disorder. Ring &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2017)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed positive genetic correlations between lameness and direct claw health traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Animals at risk need to be identified and checked whether there is variation in the type of scoring scale used. The frequency of scoring has to be considered for the choice of the model. If repeated lameness scores are available per cow and lactations, trait definitions and models need to be optimised. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trait definitions depend on the scale used. Several studies (Berry &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, S. L., D. H. Read, R. L. Walker, and T. R. Famula. 2010. Clinical, histologic, and bacteriologic findings in dairy cows with digital dermatitis (footwarts) one month after topical treatment with lincomycin hydrochloride or oxytetracycline hydrochloride. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 237:555–560.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Parker Gaddis &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Parker Gaddis, K. L., J. B. Cole, J. S. Clay, and C. Maltecca. 2014. Genomic selection for producer-recorded health event data in US dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:3190–3199.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) used lameness observations, coded «0» (not lame) or «1» (lame), in a comparable manner to certain health disorders recorded by farmers. In other cases, lameness can be grouped into three different scores (non-lame, lame and severely lame cows). Definitions might take into account the frequency of the occurrence of different scores as well as the frequency of recording (Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., M. Ledinek, L. Gruber, F. Steininger, B. Fuerst-Waltl, and C. Egger-Danner. 2018. Genetic analysis of efficiency traits in Austrian dairy cattle and their relationships with body condition score and lameness. J. Dairy Sci. 101:445-455. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). If the lameness data recorded will be used for herd management purposes, then data quality has to be especially verified (see this section, Section 7 of the ICAR guidelines).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important question is the definition of the contemporary group: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Is lameness recorded from all animals or only for the lame cows?&lt;br /&gt;
* Is the trait definition across farms comparable?&lt;br /&gt;
* Are the same standards used?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The severity of lameness may also be described using a clinical gait score (Sprecher &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sprecher, D.J., D. E. Hostetler and J.B. Kaneene. 1997. A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology, Vol. 47 (6):1179-1187. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Flower &amp;amp; Weary, 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flower, F. C., D. J. Sanderson and D. M. Weary. 2006. Effects of milking on dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. 89:2084-2089.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Koeck &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, F. Steininger, and C. Egger-Danner. 2016. Genetic parameters for body weight, body condition score and lameness in Austrian dairy cows. Interbull Bull. 50:51–53.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Egger-Danner &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egger-Danner, C., A. Koeck, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and B. Fürst-Waltl. 2017. Evaluation of different data sources for genetic improvement of claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh (Simmental) and Brown Swiss cattle. Page 294 in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. 11th Int. Conf. Lameness in Ruminants, Munich, Germany.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), which quantifies lameness on a scale from absent to very severe. For analysis, the severely lame cows (scored 3 or higher) may be analysed jointly (e.g. Rouha-Muelleder &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rouha-Mülleder, C., C. Iben, E. Wagner, G. Laaha, J. Troxler, and S. Waiblinger. 2009. Relative importance of factors influencing the prevalence of lameness in Austrian cubicle loose-housed dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 92:123–133. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Weber &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Weber, A., E. Stamer, W. Junge, and G. Thaller. 2013. Genetic parameters for lameness and claw and leg diseases in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3310–3318.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a review, Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., (2018)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported heritability estimates of lameness varying between 0.02 and 0.16 based on linear models and from 0.02 to 0.15 based on threshold models. Berry et al. (2011)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Berry, D.P., M.L. Bermingham, M. Godd and S.J. More. 2011. Genetics of animal health and disease in cattle. I. Vet. J. 64:5. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports heritabilities for lameness varying from 0.03 to 0.096 when scored by farmers or by trained assessors. The genetic correlations between lameness and claw health were between 0.60 and 0.95 (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Ring et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ring, S. C., A. J. Twomey, N. Byrne, M. M. Kelleher, T. Pabiou, M. L. Doherty, and D. P. Berry. 2018. Genetic selection for hoof health traits and cow mobility scores can accelerate the rate of genetic gain in producer scored lameness in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 101:10034–10047.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Most genetic correlations between production and lameness are unfavourable. The relationship of lameness and claw health with milk production is complex as it is difficult to distinguish causes from effects (Heringstad &amp;amp; Egger-Danner et al., 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B. C. Egger-Danner, N. Charfeddine, J.E. Pryce, K.F. Stock, J. Kofler, A.M. Sogstad, M. Holzhauer, A. Fiedler, K. Müller, P. Nielsen, G. Thomas, N. Gengler, G. de Jong, C. Ødegård, F. Malchiodi, F. Miglior, M. Alsaaod, and J. B. Cole. 2018. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 101:4801–4821.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koeck et al. (2019)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Koeck, A., B. Fuerst-Waltl, J. Kofler, J. Burgstaller, F. Steininger, C. Fuerst, and C. Egger-Danner. 2019. Short communication: Use of lameness scoring to genetically improve claw health in Austrian Fleckvieh, Brown Swiss, and Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 102:1397–1401.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that selecting for a better lameness score has the potential to reduce claw diseases, especially the frequency of severe claw diseases that lead to culling. As recording systems include lameness data as integral parts of routine welfare assessments on farms, and more and more farmers use lameness scoring for herd management purposes, increased availability of data may be expected in the future.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;[1] Cows with sole ulcers or white line lesions on the lateral hind claw often try to relieve pain by putting more weight on the medial claw.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
ICAR gratefully acknowledges the contributions to this lameness guideline by the following people:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Anne-Marie  Christen, Lactanet, Canada &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Christa Egger-Danner, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nynne Capion, University of Copenhagen, Denmark&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Noureddine Charfeddine, CONAFE, Spain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      John Cole, USDA, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerard Cramer, University of Minnesota, United-States&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Gerben de Jong, CRV Holding,  Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Andrea Fiedler, Hoof Health Practice, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Terje Fjeldaas, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Nicolas Gengler, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège,  Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Marie Haskell, Scotland Rural College, Scotland&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Bjørg Heringstad, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU,  Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Menno Holzhauer, GD Animal Health, Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Astrid Koeck, ZuchtData, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Johann Kofler, University of Veterinary Medicine, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Kerstin Müller, Freie Universität, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Jenny Pryce, La Trobe University, Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Åse Margrethe Sogstad, TINE, Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Friederike Katharina Stock, Vereinigte Informationssysteme  Tierhaltung w.V. (vit), Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•       Gilles  Thomas, Institut de l’Élevage, France&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|•      Elsa Vasseur, Mc Gill  University, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 1: Alternative Scoring Systems for Lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Mobility scoring system: Scale of 0 to 3 ====&lt;br /&gt;
A mobility scoring system is used in the UK (AHDB Dairy), in New Zealand (DairyNZ) and in Australia (Dairy Australia) where herds are large and cows are grazing most of the year. It is also promoted in the FARM Program in the US. It was designed so that anyone with experience of working with dairy cattle is able to perform mobility scoring effectively. The mobility scoring system is a four-point scale ranging from 0 «Walks evenly» to 3 «Severely or very lame». It simply assesses the cow&#039;s ability to move easily. By simplifying the scoring system, the aim is that dairy farmers are able to easily assess cow mobility on farm without the need for professional help.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== The Welfare Quality Network: Scale of 0 to 2 ====&lt;br /&gt;
This European organisation focuses on scientific exchange and activities to contribute to the development of the Welfare Quality® animal welfare assessment systems. A Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle was developed for scoring lameness and proposes a 3-point scale program where 0 is «Not lame» and 2 is «severely lame». No specific target is proposed for each point.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
Table 28 presents the general description for a two-scale program for scoring lameness: Lame or non-lame. This program is based only on gait behaviours and assessors must rely on evident signs of body language for determining the status of lameness of animals.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 28. General description of gait behaviours for non-lame and lame cows.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviours&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Non-Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Lame Cows&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Head bob&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Up and down head movement when walking. The head moves evenly as an animal walks.&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Jerky or exaggerated up and down head movements when walking. Obvious when foot makes contact with ground&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Asymmetric steps&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal places her feet in an even “1, 2, 3, 4” fashion&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal has uneven rhythm of foot placement “1, 2…..3, 4”. Foot placement is not equal on both sides&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Limping&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Animal bears weight evenly over the four limbs&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Walk with an uneven, irregular, jerky or awkward step as if favoring one leg&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;www.dairyresearch.ca/pdf/3-Animal%20Based%20Protocols-Dairy%20Research%20Cluster-eng.pdf&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== König-Garcia mobility score ====&lt;br /&gt;
König-Garcia &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; (2015)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Garcia, E., K. König, B.H. Allesen-Holm, C. Klaas, J.M. Amigo, R. Bro, and C. Enevoldsen. 2015. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 98:4560–4571. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed a five-scale scoring system named: the König-Garcia mobility score. This system was specifically developed to enable scoring while walking only because it is difficult to get an opportunity to see cows standing and walking under practical conditions. This mobility scoring achieves relatively high within-observer agreement and seems feasible for on-farm implementation as a tool for monitoring mobility for benchmarking of lameness prevalence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stall lameness score system (SLS): 0 for non-lame cow and 2 for lame cows ====&lt;br /&gt;
In tie-stall barns, scoring lameness can be challenging because cows may not be used to walking and there may not be a suitable area in which to walk cows. If walking and observation of cows is not possible, a stall lameness score system should be used. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This system represents an easier approach for scoring dry cows and young stock. SLS can be conducted in automated milking systems when cows are fixed during milking time to detect lame or affected cows. The SLS is based on a number of behaviours that cow shows while standing in the tie-stall (Winckler and Willen, 2001&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Winckler, C. and S. Willen. 2001. The reliability and repeatability of a lameness scoring system for use as an indicator of welfare in dairy cattle. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 30:103–107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Leach et al., 2009&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Leach, K. A., H. R. Whay, C. M. Maggs, Z. E. Barker, E. S. Paul, A. K. Bell and D. C. J. Main. 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Res. Vet. Sci. 89:318-323. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Gibbons et al., 2014 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gibbons, J., D. B. Haley, J. Higginson Cutler, C. Nash, J. Zaffino, D. Pellerin, S. Adam, A. Fournier, A. M. de Passillé, J. Rushen and E. Vasseur. 2014. Technical note: A comparison of 2 methods of assessing lameness prevalence in tiestall herds. J. Dairy Sci. 97:350-353. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;- Table 29).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most common behaviours recorded are: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weight shifting;&lt;br /&gt;
* Standing on the edge of the stall;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while standing, and;&lt;br /&gt;
* Uneven weight bearing while moving from side to side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The SLS method provides an estimate of the prevalence of lameness in tie-stall herds comparable with traditional gait scoring, but does not require that the cows be untied. It could be used to improve lameness detection on tie-stall farms and obtain estimates of lameness prevalence without the need to walk the cows (Gibbons &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;., 2014&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:5&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 29. Description of the behaviour indicators of the stall lameness score system[1].&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Behaviour indicator&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Description&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Standing Pose (Voluntary movements)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Stand on Edge&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(EDGE)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Placement of one or more feet on the edge of the stall while standing stationary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Standing on the edge of a step when stationary, typically to relieve pressure on one part of the claw. This does not refer to when both hind feet are in the gutter or when cow briefly places her foot on the edge during a movement/step.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Weight shift&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(SHIFT)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Regular, repeated shifting of weight from one foot to another. Repeated shifting is defined as lifting each hind foot at least twice off the ground (L-R-L-R or vice versa).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The foot must be lifted and returned to the same location and does not include stepping forward or backward.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven weight&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;(REST)&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Repeated resting of one foot more than the other as indicated by the cow raising a part or the entire foot off the ground. This does NOT include raising of the foot to lick or during kicking.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Cow moved from side to side&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&#039;&#039;&#039;Uneven movement&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight bearing between feet when the cow was encouraged to move from side to side. This is demonstrated by a greater rapid movement of one foot relative to the other, or by an evident reluctance to bear weight on a particular foot.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future Measures of Lameness ===&lt;br /&gt;
Development of gait assessment or automatic lameness detection systems could provide more accurate and reliable data in the near future. Currently, these technologies are mostly used in research and they require sophisticated equipment or installation that limits their large-scale use on farms. Some examples of such technologies include 3D images-based systems, thermal imaging cameras, 4-scale weighing platform, or wearable activity sensors (Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, M. Luternauer, M. G. Doherr, and A. Steiner. 2015. Effect of routine claw trimming on claw temperature in dairy cows measured by infrared thermography. J. Dairy Sci. 98:2381–2388. doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8594&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nechanitzky, K., A. Starke, B. Vidondo, H. Müller and M. Reckardt. 2016. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. J. Dairy Sci. 99:2904–2914. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Barker &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2018&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Barker, Z. E., J. R. Amory, J. L. Wright, S. A. Mason, R. W. Blowey and L. E. Green. 2009. Risk factors for increased rates of sole ulcers, white line disease, and digital dermatitis in dairy cattle from twenty-seven farms in England and Wales. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 1971–1978. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1590.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an activity sensor to measure, inter alia, lying time, tools for automatic lameness detection can estimate the risk of lameness by employing special models that take milking and feeding times into account (De Mol &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2013&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;de Mol, R. M., A. G., Bleumer, E. J. B., J. T. N. van der Werf, and Y. de Haas. 2013. Applicability of day-to-day variation in behavior for the automated detection of lameness in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 96:3703–3712.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2016)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Beer, G., M. Alsaaod, A. Starke, G. Schuepbach-Regula, H. Müller, P. Kohler, P. and A. Steiner. 2016. Use of extended characteristics of locomotion and feeding behavior for automated identification of lame dairy cows, PLOS ONE 11:e0155796.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reported that compared to healthy, non-lame cows, the behaviour of lame cows or cows with foot pathologies was characterized by longer lying bouts, more time spent lying down, shorter strides, slower walking speed, lower bite rate while grazing, and lower feeding time or faster eating. Models based on only two 3D accelerometer variables (walking speed, standing bouts) automatically identified slightly lame cows with both a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% (Beer &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giuliana &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. (2014)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Giuliana, G. M.-P., J. Kaler, J. Remnant, L. Cheyne, and C. Abbott. 2014. Behavioural changes in dairy cows with lameness in an automatic milking system, Applied Ani. Behavioural Science 150: 1-8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; showed that lameness leads to behavioural changes in automatic milking systems. A recent study showed that a 4-scale weighing platform allowed the detection of cows with sole ulcers or white line disease with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 80% (Nechanitzky &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039; 2016&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:6&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;). Recently, infrared thermography (IRT) has been used in bovine medicine to identify thermal skin abnormalities by characterizing a temperature increase or decrease in affected areas. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow, in particular, can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions (Alsaaod and Büscher 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M. and W. Buscher. 2012. Detection of hoof lesions using digital infrared thermography in dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci. 95: 735–742.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Stokes &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2012&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Stokes, J.E., K. A. Leach, D. C. Main, and H. R. Whay. 2012. An investigation into the use of infrared thermography (IRT) as a rapid diagnostic tool for foot lesions in dairy cattle, Vet. J. 193: 674–678.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Alsaaod &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2014&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alsaaod, M., C. Syring, J., Dietrich, M. G. Doherr, T. Gujan and A. Steiner. 2014. A field trial of infrared thermography as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for early detection of digital dermatitis in dairy cows, Vet. J. 199:281–285.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Wilhelm &#039;&#039;et al&#039;&#039;. 2015&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wilhelm, K., J. Wilhelm, and M. Furll. 2015. Use of thermography to monitor sole haemorrhages and temperature distribution over the claws of dairy cattle. Vet. Rec. 176: 146. doi:10.1136/vr.101547.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These technologies are still costly and still under development for increasing accuracy and precision for detecting abnormalities in cow gait or posture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 2: Data Recording Sheets for lameness ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data Recording Sheets ===&lt;br /&gt;
A greater understanding of the dynamics of lameness in dairy herds can be obtained from improved record keeping systems and a comprehension of how lame cows interact with the environment (Cook, 2005&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cook, N. 2005. A Guide to Investigating a Herd Lameness Problem. 17 p. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). The dairy farmers or herd manager needs to determine the extent of the lameness problem on his herd: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The predominant causes;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Their trigger factors, the risk factors, and,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand the role of cow comfort and adequate hoof care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 19[2] and Figure 20 present proposed templates for recording lameness in free- and tie-stall barns respectively.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 19. Example of a data-recording sheet – Free-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|1 Normal&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|2 Mildly lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|3 Moderately lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|4 Lame&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|5 Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Note: 90% cows = score 1 / &amp;lt;10% cows = scores 2 + 3&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Figure 20. Example of a data-recording sheet – Tie-stall.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Stand on edge&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Weight shift&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven weight&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Uneven movement&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|Severely lame&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|1&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|2&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|3&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|4&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|5&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|6&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot;|…&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: A cow will be scored as obviously/severely lame (unacceptable) if 2 or more indicators are recorded.&lt;br /&gt;
----[1] &#039;&#039;Ref.: Gibbons, et al. 2014.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;[2]&#039;&#039;&#039; Both adapted from the Dairy Research Cluster (www.dairyresearch.ca/cow-comfort.php#self).&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Calving traits in Dairy Cattle =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
The purpose of these ICAR guidelines for recording of calving performance traits in dairy cattle is to give recommendations on recording, data validation and use of information in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking, and genetic evaluations. For beef breeds please see Section 3 of the ICAR guidelines for Beef Cattle Recording. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Definitions and terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main calving traits are stillbirth and calving ease. Other relevant traits are calf size and gestation length. All these traits have both direct and maternal aspects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is one of the major issues related to the calving. Figures suggested that the frequency has increased in dairy herds, although the reasons are still not clear (Mee, 2020). Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. Other terms like calf livability, perinatal survival, or calf mortality (alive or dead) are also used in addition or instead of stillbirth. In this document we use stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf mortality may be classified as abortion if it is stillborn before 260 days of gestation, and as stillbirth if it is after 260 days of gestation (Mee, 2020). Calf mortality later than 24 hours after parturition and mortality of young stock will not be considered further in this guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is defined as how easy or difficult the calving was. In this document we use calving ease, other terms such as calving difficulty and dystocia are used for similar traits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is the number of days between conception date (usually the last insemination date) and the calving date. Average dairy cattle gestation length is +/- 280 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth (or calf birth weight). Often assessed as a subjective score. Calf size is associated with calving ease, stillbirth, and calf mortality. For Holstein the average calf is about 40 kg with a standard deviation of 4 to 5 kg.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data recording ==&lt;br /&gt;
Registration of calving traits should be done for all calvings within all herds. Calving information is usually recorded by the dairy farmer. In some countries severe cases of dystocia may be recorded via veterinary treatments and be available from health recording system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recording of calving traits ===&lt;br /&gt;
The most important traits to record are: Calving ease and stillbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also recommended: Gestation length and calf size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Important information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the following information should be ensured for calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Herd ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Cow ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Parity/lactation number&lt;br /&gt;
* Calving date&lt;br /&gt;
* ID of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Sex of calf/calves&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Number of calves born at calving (twin information)&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Sire breed&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf from embryo? (yes/no); if yes, specify if from Ovum pick up (OPU)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;ID of calf. From identification &amp;amp; registration perspective all live animals should be identified within 48 hours, but regulations regarding calves born dead may differ between countries. A “dummy” ID needs to be assigned to stillborn calves that have not been assigned an official ID.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Sex of calf should always be recorded, as it has a strong influence on calving ease and the importance of including this in the evaluation model increases when sexed semen is used. This also includes the sex of stillborn calves.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Other relevant information for calving traits recording ====&lt;br /&gt;
The following may be useful information related to calving traits:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Detailed information related to embryo transfer process (see: [[Section 06 – AI and ET Data and Fertility Analysis|Section 06]] of the ICAR guidelines for recording AI and ET and reporting fertility.&lt;br /&gt;
* Calf size&lt;br /&gt;
* Insemination dates are needed for calculation of gestation length&lt;br /&gt;
* Pelvic area or rump width and rump angle&lt;br /&gt;
* Information on sexed semen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Calving Ease scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The calving ease score should describe how easy or difficult the calving was. The optimum would be to distinguish between the following situations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted unobserved calving (if farmer not present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Unassisted observed calving (no assistance needed)&lt;br /&gt;
* Easy pull: calving which really needed some manual assistance&lt;br /&gt;
* Hard pull: some mechanical assistance required&lt;br /&gt;
* Difficult calving: vet assistance required.&lt;br /&gt;
* Caesarean section&lt;br /&gt;
* Embryotomy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All details may not always be relevant or needed. We recommend that calving ease should be scored in 4 classes. The classes should be well defined and allow easy determination of the class to help keeping accurate records.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: number;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy, unassisted:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving without any assistance (also if unobserved/farmer not present)&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Easy pull:&#039;&#039;&#039; calving which really needed some manual assistance&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Difficult calving/Hard pull&#039;&#039;&#039;: some mechanical assistance required, with or without veterinarian aid&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Caesarean section/embryotomy&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We recommend that caesarean section and embryotomy be recorded in a separate category, such that these records can easily be omitted when data are used for genetic evaluation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other scaling systems exist, and the level of detail needed may vary between breeds and depend on the purpose of data use.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Stillbirth scoring scale ====&lt;br /&gt;
Stillbirth is defined as a calving in which the calf is born dead or dies during the first 24 hours after parturition. We recommend scoring stillbirth using two classes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ol style=&amp;quot;list-style-type: decimal;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Alive&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;li&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Dead at birth or dead within the first 24 hours&#039;&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/li&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ol&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some countries record stillbirth using 3 categories: 1. Alive, 2=Dead at birth, 3=Alive at birth but dead within the first 24 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calves alive at birth and passing the 24-hour threshold alive must be identified and recorded as such. Therefore, a calf born without information on calf identification and live status should not be assumed to be alive calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording gestation length ====&lt;br /&gt;
Gestation length is computed from insemination date and calving date (number of days).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Recording calf size ====&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size at birth is often assessed as a subjective score, e.g. small, medium, large. A more accurate alternative would be calf birth weight.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Documentation and data flow ===&lt;br /&gt;
The farmer/dairy producer used to fill in the birth registration for each new born and delivered it to DHI /milk recording organisation. Information related to how the calving took place and on the status of liveability of each calf, was until recently filled in the same form but as optional information, in most countries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nowadays, all information related to the calving is becoming more and more relevant, mainly for use in genetic evaluations. As soon as possible after each delivery, calving ease score should be set by the farmer and reported in connection with new born animal id registration, mainly through digital solutions, to assure a complete and an accurate data recording. Digital applications, widely used for animal registration, allowed by different drop-down-menu options recording all information about calving, such as the number of calves born, the sex of each new calf, the size of each new calf and its liveability. For herds without access to digital solutions, information could be recorded by DHI/milk recording technicians or by filling all the information in the traditional registration form and sent it to the correspondent registration organisation within each country.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Data validation ==&lt;br /&gt;
The main issues related with calving traits data recording are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential under-reporting of dystocia cases: That may result in herds with very low frequency of some calving ease classes.&lt;br /&gt;
* Potential misinterpretation of the scale: the differentiation between scores 1 and 2 may not always be well understood. That is why farmers should take into consideration the cow’s needs rather than what they did. For herds with more frequent assisted calving than unassisted calving, scores definition should be discussed with the farmer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The data validation process has to ensure the usefulness of this information for each purpose and avoid loss of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data validation is generally done in two steps called data verification and data editing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data verification&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basic checks on format and completeness, at the incorporation of data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For example,&#039;&#039;&#039; Plausibility of ID: &#039;&#039;animal-ID, herd-ID, calving ease score&#039;&#039;. Reasonableness of dates: &#039;&#039;date of insemination, date of calving.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Checking the correctness of data depend on the purpose of use and on the information source.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data editing&#039;&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data editing should include a clear protocol that describes how to validate the quality of the data from each farm. For calving ease, a check on the distribution of classes is needed. If a herd has a high percentage of records in a single class, the calving ease records from that herd period should be checked with the farmer, and depending on the data uses, they might be omitted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To define the required period, we should bear in mind that we need to define a minimum number of calving. Depending on the use of the data a minimum frequency could be required.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For genetic evaluation the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If frequency of a single class of calving ease is very low (Less than 1%) it should be combined with the neighbouring class or increased the period. If classes are combined due to the number of cases, data should continuously be carefully monitored. The limits here should follow local circumstances.&lt;br /&gt;
* Exclude records of multiple births.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to handle calving records resulting from embryo transfer (ET) is a question.&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude all ET records.&lt;br /&gt;
** Modelling ET correctly: direct and maternal effects - dam of embryo and cow carrying the calf (recipient cow), pedigree and pe effects&lt;br /&gt;
** Include method for ET.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breed of sire of calf. How to handle beef on dairy&lt;br /&gt;
** Exclude if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One solution to these issues is to edit the data used for genetic evaluation and exclude calving records resulting from embryo transfer, records from multiple births (twins), and if sire or maternal grandsire of calf is unknown or of another breed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;For herd management and benchmarking the following edits should be considered:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Data recorded about calving are valuable for herd management and decision-making process. For this use data should be as complete as possible and only records that are completely not consistent with other sources of information such as milk recording data, should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For benchmarking use, the most important check should be made on the representativeness of the reference group at which belong each record.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use of data ==&lt;br /&gt;
Routinely recorded calving performance is valuable information that can be used in herd management, documentation of animal welfare, benchmarking and for genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic evaluation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ideally, the categorical traits of stillbirth and calving ease should be analyzed using a multivariate threshold model with direct and maternal effects (e.g. Heringstad et al 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Cole et al., 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cole, J.B., G.R. Wiggans, and P.M. VanRaden. 2007. Genetic evaluation of stillbirth in United States Holsteins using a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. J Dairy Sci. 90:2480-2488. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-435&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, linear models may often be the model of choice for routine genetic evaluation as they are fast, easy to implement, and in most cases gives a very similar ranking of animals as more advanced models. Eaglen et al. (2012) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eaglen, S.A., M.P. Coffey, J.A. Woolliams, and E. Wall. 2012. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44(1):23. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-23&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;compared models for calving traits and concluded that multi-trait models had an advantage over univariate models and that extended sire models (i.e. sire maternal grandsire model) are more practical and robust than animal models. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The models used for genetic evaluation must include both direct and maternal effects for all calving traits. Direct effects are the calf’s genetic potential for being born easily and alive, while maternal effects are the cow’s genetic potential for easy calving and liveborn calves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Traits and trait definitions&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Precorrection for heterogenous variance may be needed. EuroGenomics (2022) suggest that if a linear model approach is chosen, should approximation to normal distribution using e.g. Snell scores be used (Snell, 1964&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Snell, E. J. 1964. A Scaling Procedure for Ordered Categorical Data. Biometrics Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1964), pp. 592-607. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2528498&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease is recorded as an ordered categorical trait. How many classes to be used in genetic evaluation is a question. If the frequency is low than 1% in any classes, it may be needed to combine with neighbouring class. However, if the frequency of any class is higher than 90%, the data of the herd-period of time should be eliminated when the aim is estimating breeding values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some countries (USA for example) calving ease is defined as calving difficulty expressed as percentage of births of bull calves that are difficult in primiparous heifers and in adult cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calf size and gestation length are examples of genetically correlated traits that may be useful indicator traits to include in a multivariate model together with stillbirth and calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If multiple parities are included in the genetic evaluation we recommend that first and later parities are treated as genetically correlated trait. Genetic correlations far from 1 suggest that first and later lactation should not be assumed to be the same trait across parities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
                                                  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Effects to consider&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Effects to consider in the model for genetic evaluation of calving traits, in addition to the standard effects such as the cow’s age, contemporary group, and parity, are the sex of calf(s) and the number of calves born (twin information). Calves coming from embryo transfer must be modelled correctly, as a direct effect is coming from the pedigree of the dam that provided the embryo, while the maternal effect (genetic and potentially permanent environment) is coming from the pedigree of the dam that carries the calf.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider whether interaction terms to correct for environmental time trends are needed, such as Herd-Year-Age or Herd-Year-Month of calving.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Proofs published&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The traits delivered to INTERBULL are only first parity calving traits. It would be an improvement if INTERBULL would allow sending BV predicted for multiple lactations. The traits considered are direct and maternal calving ease and direct and maternal stillbirth. For details related to national genetic evaluations of calving traits see: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Calving ease direct: It indicates the influence of the sire on calving ease.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maternal calving ease: It indicates how easily a sire’s daughter will calve compared to the daughters of other sires.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Breeding values for gestation length and calf size could be useful for herd management purposes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic parameters&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Heritability&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;. The heritabilities of calving performance traits are in general low. The range of heritabilities used for first parity calving traits in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull are in Table 29 (From: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms), and details are given in Appendix 3: heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 30. Range of heritabilities of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving  Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Linear model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021 – 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023 – 0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.002 – 0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010 – 0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Threshold model&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056 – 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027 - 0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03 - 0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058 - 0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Genetic correlations.&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039; In routine genetic evaluations are the genetic correlation between direct and maternal calving traits often assumed to be zero (https://interbull.org/ib/geforms). Heringstad et al (2007)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Heringstad, B., Y.M. Chang, M. Svendsen, and D. Gianola. 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3500-3507. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-792&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; estimated strong genetic correlations between direct stillbirth and direct calving difficulty (0.79), and between maternal stillbirth and maternal calving difficulty (0.62) for Norwegian Red cows, whereas all genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects within or between traits were close to zero, suggesting that bulls should be evaluated both as sire of calf (direct effect) and sire of the cow (maternal effect).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Herd management use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Information on calving traits are useful in herd management. Farmers try to consider an endless list of best practices and recommended standards to ensure a good preparation for calving. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence of their effectiveness. On the other hand, it is known that herd management to reduce dystocia cases should start with heifers’ development.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The best way to know if something is going wrong around calving within a specific farm is by using calving ease scores and monitoring the situation over different periods of time. Reducing the number of dystocia cases will improve cow- as well as calf health and animal welfare. Examples on measures that can improve calving performance:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Make breeding plans to avoid difficult calvings. Consider the bulls breeding value for calving ease and calf size (direct effect, sire of calf) when choosing which bulls to use for each cow. Avoid using bulls that gives large calves to heifers/small cows and to cows that had difficult calving in the past (e.g. GENEX, 2022&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;GENEX. 2022. How much calving ease is enough? Available at &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://genex.coop/how-much-calving-ease-is-enough/&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding values for gestation length (direct effect, sire of calf) can be used to predict expected calving date more accurately and thereby be an useful herd management tool.&lt;br /&gt;
* Use information on calving performance when making culling decisions for the herd.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, evidence-based best management practices for animals around calving are largely unknown, with several knowledge gaps still existing on the subject. Further investigations on the effect of management practices, on the effect of environmental conditions on calving time, and on cow-calving behaviours are needed to understand better calving process and help farmers with more information about how to improve dairy cow’s management around calving period. Meanwhile, analysing, throughout seasons/years of calving, the easy-calving-score frequencies to detect any issues and check all risk factors to find out their grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Animal welfare use ===&lt;br /&gt;
Ensuring a high animal welfare on dairy industry may rely on many factors, which could be related to herd management, farm facilities and animal abilities. The objective way to assess animal welfare should be related to animal performances. Calving performance traits, considered as health or reproductive aspects by animal welfare expert, are ones of the important performances taken account by animal welfare protocol assessments. Routinely recorded herd data, such as records on stillbirths and dystocia, can be used for documentation of animal welfare status (Haskell et al. 2019&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Haskell (2019). Mapping the global use of welfare indicators for dairy cows.&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://www.icar.org/Documents/Prague-2019/Presentations/02%20-%20Marie%20Haskell.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; OIE, 2020&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;OIE. 2020: Terrestrial Animal Health Code. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/oie-terrestrial-code-1_2019_en.pdf&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Acknowledgements&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are grateful to EuroGenomics, who shared their knowledge and experience, and gave access to their document “Golden Standard for calving traits (https://www.eurogenomics.com/golden-standards.html), which aim at harmonization of traits within the EuroGenomics collaboration.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Appendix 3:  Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations. == &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;7&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;Table 1. Heritability of calving traits used in national genetic evaluations by countries that deliver calving traits to Interbull (from: https://interbull.org/ib/geforms, accessed March 2022).&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Country&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Breed&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Model&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Ease&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&#039;&#039;&#039;Stillbirth&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|- style=&amp;quot;background-color:#efefef;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Direct&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |Maternal&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Australia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.07&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |ST AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.077&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.023&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Canada&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, BWS, GUE&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.125&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0055&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.071&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AYR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.004&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |JER&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.021&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.158&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0018&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.0712&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; | Denmark, Finland, Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.04&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.035&lt;br /&gt;
|0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| rowspan=&amp;quot;2&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |France&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.056&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.032&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.074&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.043&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.059&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.058&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Germany, Austria, Luxemburg&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |BSW&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.057&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.013&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.010&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Austria, Germany, Czech Republic&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |FL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.066&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.105&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.012&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |GBR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.044&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Hungary&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.24&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.156&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Ireland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL, RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.09&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Israel&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.06&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.014&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Italia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.08&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.036&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Netherlands&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.038&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.086&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |New Zeeland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |All&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.045&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Norway&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |RDC&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.068&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.011&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Poland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT AM&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.048&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.039&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.054&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Slovakia&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.067&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Spain&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.027&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |Switzerland&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |MT, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.041&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.007&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:left;&amp;quot; |USA&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |HOL&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |THR, S-MGS&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.072&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.053&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.03&lt;br /&gt;
| style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot; |0.065&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;Breed: HOL=Holstein, RDC=Red Dairy Cattle, AYR=Ayrshire, JER=Jersey; FL=Fleckvieh.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;MT=multi-trait model, AM=animal model, S-MGS=Sire maternal grandsire, THR=Threshold model.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= Sensor based behavior information for functional traits with focus on rumination =&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;mw-collapsible mw-collapsed&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 1: General introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Background and aim of the guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
Recent advancements in sensor technologies have significantly enhanced their capacity to technically support farmers and their advisors in monitoring the health, performance, and welfare of dairy cattle. As presented in the systematic review by Stygar et al. (2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stygar, A.H., Gómez, Y., Berteselli, G.V., Dalla Costa, E., Canali, E., Niemi, J.K., Llonch, P., Pastell, M. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8, 177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and in other focused reviews (e.g., Hogeveen et al., 2021), a wide range of commercially available sensor systems exists and promises significant gains in the understanding and improvement of welfare in livestock. The technologies cover the spectrum from wearable devices with multiple functions (e.g., tracking of physiological parameters) to environmental sensors that monitor housing and climatic conditions, and collectively aim to provide actionable insights about animal health, reproductive status and welfare. Most wearable sensors rely on 3D accelerometers, which measure acceleration or motion to quantify cow behaviour. Sensor technology providers use algorithms and pattern recognition to enhance the raw accelerometer data and produce sensor systems which recognize rumination, eating, lying, standing, and other behaviours, using the data from sensors on the cow’s leg, neck, ear, or tail or from a bolus in the rumen. The integration of sensor systems into livestock farming settings presents numerous opportunities to enhance animal health, performance and welfare, supporting farmer decision-making on individual cow and group level and farm efficiency. However, while large amounts of sensor data are being collected, only a small fraction is currently used on farms, in genetic evaluation and breeding programs, or along the dairy value chain (Brito et al., 2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. To increase confidence in the use of data from advanced technologies and sensor-based herd management systems among key stakeholders (farmers and consultants, authorities, dairy processors, breeding and genetics organizations, and consumers), sensor-derived data need to be combined with routinely recorded data. At present, only a small fraction of commercially available sensor systems are independently validated for welfare assessment following the principles of the Welfare Quality® protocol (14%; Stygar et al., 2021)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Stygar2021&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and beyond farmers’ own experience, few studies have investigated the performance of some sensor systems in diverse farming environments, across different farm and management systems and geographical locations. These challenges motivate the need for coordinated guidance on how to define, process, and use sensor-derived behavioural information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Against this background, the International Committee of Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) started a joint initiative aiming at improved usability of data across sensor systems and applications. The initiative leaders are the ICAR Functional Traits Working Group (ICAR FTWG) and the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare (IDF SCAHW) in collaboration with international experts from academia and industry organizations. The primary aim of this initiative is to promote the integrated use of sensor data and derived novel traits along the dairy value chain. Standardisation and harmonisation will be supported through guidelines that include basic definitions and recommendations regarding data processing and use. Priorities of work are based on results from a survey with manufacturers and feedback on stakeholder needs. These are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing a common agreement on definitions and terminology for health conditions and behaviours measured with sensor systems.&lt;br /&gt;
* Developing standards and recommendations to facilitate exchange of data and information across different farms and sensor technologies in accordance and collaboration with other ICAR standards and working groups.&lt;br /&gt;
* Make guidelines based on best practices for data collection, handling and analysis for different use, e.g. genetics, health and welfare monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generating recommendations, guidance and protocols for testing and calibrating the performance of sensor systems for voluntary use work was started with focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of the guideline.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The work was started with a focus on the sensor based behavioural trait rumination, which serves as a starting point; the same framework is intended to be extended to other sensor-based behavioural traits in future iterations of these guidelines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Description of data and data sources ====&lt;br /&gt;
The current guideline focuses on data from sensor systems measuring animal behaviour. These sensor systems can provide information on behavioural measurements like rumination, eating, lying or indexes like activity indexes or alerts for calving, oestrus or health events. Various sensor systems are based on different technologies using different algorithms and provide different information to the farmer..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 2: Terminology ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Suggested Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor-based rumination data ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Total daily rumination time in minutes per day, or&lt;br /&gt;
* Proportion of time spent ruminating per day. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rumination time or proportion of time spent ruminating per time unit to enable investigation of circadian patterns and deviance, e.g. daily, hourly or 2-hourly summaries.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coefficient of variation of hourly rumination&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section_7_Figure_1..jpg|alt=Section 7 Figure 1]]Figure 1. Example of sensor observed daily rumination time across the transition period in a herd&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;The same KPI principle applies to other behavioral traits that are continuously measured like e.g..&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative Readings ===&lt;br /&gt;
Nørgaard, P. (2003) OPtagelse af foder og drovtugning. in: Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bind 1 - Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering. DJF rapport. Editors: T. Hvelplund and P. Nørgaard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruckebusch, Y. 1988. Motility of the gastro-intestinal tract. Pages 64–107 in The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. D. C. Church, ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rutter, M., (2000). Graze: A program to analyse recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 32 (1), 86-92.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Schirmann, K., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Weary, D.M., Veira, D.M., and Heuwieser, W (2009). Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :6052–6055. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2361&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welch, J. G. 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. J. Anim. Sci. 54:885–894. https:// doi .org/ 10 .2527/ jas1982.544885x.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 3: Sensor data cleaning ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recommendations for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
These recommendations are general guidelines for understanding sensor-generated data, regardless of the quality management measures implemented by the sensor technology provider. A similar approach is also used for other data e.g. in genetic evaluation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Summary - steps for data cleaning ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Optional: Sensor ICAR Device reference ID.&lt;br /&gt;
* If data from different data sources is merged, validate the data merging process .&lt;br /&gt;
* Get to know your data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check the completeness of the data.&lt;br /&gt;
* Evaluate plausibility of sensor measures.&lt;br /&gt;
* Detect and remove outliers.&lt;br /&gt;
* Check for technology-related noise.&lt;br /&gt;
* Document your approach.&lt;br /&gt;
* Outline context and purpose of further use of data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The items in this summary checklist correspond to and summarise the five-step framework described below and are intended as a quick user guide to the more detailed explanations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Five-step framework for cleaning sensor data including ===&lt;br /&gt;
These instructions are proposed by Schodl et al. 2024&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Schodl, K., Stygar, A., Steininger, F., &amp;amp; Egger-Danner, C., 2024a. Sensor data cleaning for applications in dairy herd management and breeding. Front. Anim. Sci., 5, p.1444948. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Verification of the data preprocessing:&#039;&#039;&#039; Accurate alignment between animal identifiers and sensor data is critical. Errors such as duplicate device assignments to one animal (or vice versa including assignment date and removal date), broken sensors, and time zone mismatches must be identified and corrected, if possible. It is recommended to consult with digital technology companies for information on proper alignment as well as algorithm learning periods. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Understanding the data&#039;&#039;&#039;: This step involves identifying the type of data (e.g., raw sensor data or processed data retrieved from interfaces), its nature including units and whether it is a single shot measurement or an aggregated value, and sampling rates. Proper data visualization is recommended to uncover patterns, distributions, or anomalies. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Checking data completeness&#039;&#039;&#039;: Missing data causing gaps in time series is a common issue and often caused by sensor malfunctions, low battery life, or poor connectivity. Depending on the subsequent analyses, missing data may require interpolation, imputation, or exclusion. Conversely, duplicate or inconsistent timestamps (might be a difference between sensor and local system) should be resolved to maintain data integrity. The choice between interpolation, imputation, or exclusion of missing data should be guided by the intended application, with more conservative rules recommended for genetic evaluation than for descriptive herd-level monitoring.&lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Evaluating data plausibility and outlier detection&#039;&#039;&#039;: This is a critically important step and requires well-considered decisions by the data user. Outlier detection may be based on biological meaningful ranges, including, where possible, illustrative numeric examples (for example, typical daily rumination ranges under normal conditions), cross-checks using additional information, if available, statistical thresholds (e.g., ±3 standard deviations from the mean), and advanced modelling techniques such as Dynamic Linear Models incorporating Kalman filters (e.g., Stygar et al., 2017) or utilizing the co-dependency of data quality and model robustness (e.g., Papst et al., 2022). Regarding the management of outliers, attention should be paid to avoid removal of genuine outliers that may hold critical insights. &lt;br /&gt;
# &#039;&#039;&#039;Addressing technology-related noise&#039;&#039;&#039;: Sensor drift, calibration issues, and software or hardware updates may introduce inconsistencies in the data. Information on updates and handling of drift and calibration issues by the sensor company may not be available. Indications to look for in the data are the introduction of new variables, different temporal resolutions, and sudden or persistent changes in scale. Where possible, farms or data managers are encouraged to keep a simple log of firmware or software changes, calibration events, and major hardware replacements to aid interpretation of any observed shifts in the sensor data over time (see Part 4).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to these steps, broader aspects such as the purpose and context of data analyses and the thorough documentation and transparency of the process, which are largely underreported, are essential. For instance, data for applications in herd management may have different requirements than those for genetic evaluation. As an example, if different versions of a software were used in a certain farm, but all animals from the same contemporary group had the same sensor version, the data would be useful for genetic purposes as geneticists are interested in differences among animals from the same group instead of the absolute values per se. Specific information related to data cleaning for different applications are found in the description of the use cases below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Specific aspects related to the example rumination&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To check the measured trait and confirm that it is within biological ranges (e.g. if rumination values summed up to 24-hour intervals are within biologically possible estimates).&lt;br /&gt;
# To check for outliers caused by missing observations – this step is crucial for highly aggregated values (sums of daily observations). The activity budget of an animal (e.g. rumination, eating, and other behaviors that are not rumination or eating) should sum up to close to 24 hours. If the sum of mutually exclusive activities is below 20 h, it can be assumed that there was a connection problem and data were not properly stored for that 24-interval. Therefore, this observation should be removed as an outlier. &lt;br /&gt;
# Remove all observations from the “calibration period” – (14 days, adjustable if manufactured provides evidence) after deployment of the sensors or software update (based on communication with the sensor producer or information from farmer). The “learning period” principle should also be used when switching sensors between animals. If the learning period data is already removed by the data provider, this information should be recorded, including the length of the learning period.&lt;br /&gt;
# Check the number of observation days for each individual animal (with unique animal ID). For genetic evaluation, the minimum duration of data collection should be defined according to the intended use of the data, as different lactation stages may be more relevant for different traits (e.g. early-lactation disease events).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More details can be found in Schodl et al. (2024)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Schodl2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1444948&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Part 4: Use of sensor data (focus on time series data) for genetic improvement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Structure of guidelines related to rumination sensor and use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines are intended to provide stakeholders using data from sensors in dairy farms with recommendations for recording, processing, integration, and standardization across sensors; deriving novel traits for management and breeding purposes; and genetically evaluating derived functional traits. By adhering to these recommendations, stakeholders can ensure consistent and reliable data collection, leading to improved management and breeding decisions. This specific guideline focuses on rumination sensors, which monitor cows&#039; chewing activity to assess their health and productivity, and it is part of a series of guidelines related to the use of sensor data for dairy cattle management and breeding purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For genetic purposes, rumination time has been evaluated as a proxy of feed efficiency (Byskov et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; Martin et al., 2021&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin, M. J., Dórea, J. R. R., Borchers, M. R., Wallace, R. L., Bertics, S. J., DeNise, S. K., Weigel, K. A., &amp;amp; White, H. M. (2021). Comparison of methods to predict feed intake and residual feed intake using behavioral and metabolite data in addition to classical performance variables. Journal of Dairy Science, 104(8), 8765–8782. &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-20051&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and functional traits such as metabolic diseases and claw health (Moretti et al., 2017&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moretti, R., Biffani, S., Tiezzi, F., Maltecca, C., Chessa, S. and Bozzi, R., 2017. Rumination time as a potential predictor of common diseases in high-productive Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 84(4), 385-390.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;). However, there is limited information in the literature highlighting the value of rumination time as an auxiliary trait. In addition to average rumination time over specific periods, there is a growing interest in using longitudinal measurements of rumination time to define overall resilience (defined as the ability of an animal to be minimally affected by environmental disturbances and also to quickly return to its normal state).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, although we recognize the potential limitations of rumination variables for direct genetic evaluations, standardizing recording and data editing could facilitate the comparison of future research results (e.g., identification of novel traits for breeding purposes). Furthermore, rumination variables might be more useful for breeding and management purposes when combined with other datasets such as sensor-based activity measures (e.g., lying, standing, eating, drinking). It has to be stated, that sensor derived traits are proxies and are not comparable with veterinarian diagnoses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To establish recording and data collection for rumination sensor data use in genetics, the following information is needed:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Required information ===&lt;br /&gt;
The items listed in Sections 1–4 below are considered essential inputs for routine genetic evaluation, whereas the fields under &amp;quot;Other potentially relevant information&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Optional Information&amp;quot; are recommended primarily for research or extended applications when available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next section defines the data and standards recommended to be used for genetic evaluation. Specifications for data exchange are documented in &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://github.com/adewg/ICAR&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Animal Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Unique  Animal ID:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use the ICAR ADE format (several identifier formats are accepted): Breed + Country + Sex + Identification number&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to ICAR guidelines&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data will agree on the data format for a unique Animal ID.&lt;br /&gt;
*** For genetic evaluation it is recommended to work with farms using a herd management system and where there is the link to a national ID. A cross-reference table with link from sensor ID to different IDs on the farm including the national ID might be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
*** &#039;&#039;&#039;Requirements to participating farms&#039;&#039;&#039;: farmer must make sure that there is link from the sensor to a unique animal ID&lt;br /&gt;
** Although not recommended, sensors (and 15-digit RFID-tags) might be reused on different animals over this cannot be avoided, we recommend farmers to record this information for further verification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Breed:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Use ICAR/Interbull breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** Refer to breed codes&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Parties exchanging data need to agree on the breed codes to be used&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Lactation Number&#039;&#039;&#039; (available from other sources, e.g. DHI)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Calving Date&#039;&#039;&#039; (from other sources):&lt;br /&gt;
** Format as YYYY-MM-DD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Farm Information:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Farm ID     and Site ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (use ICAR ADE     standards)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Location:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** Postal code, city, state/province, country, time zone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sensor Information ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor brand:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor type: (&#039;&#039;&#039;e.g., based on     accelerometers, acoustics)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor version (or update):&#039;&#039;&#039; 20/11/2024     – not possible&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Recommendation:&#039;&#039; Data quality assurance is important for modeling in genetic evaluations. If major changes and updates were implemented in the software or sensors (and the same updates did not happen for all sensors within a farm), it is important to report this information to facilitate interpretation of the data and improve the accuracy of the genetic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor Unique ID&#039;&#039;&#039; (not required as linked to animal ID)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;Comment:&#039;&#039; If the same sensor would be used on different animals, it is important that the information provided enables detection. Due to link to unique animal ID it should be okay and not needed. We need to be aware that problems could happen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor ICAR Device reference ID: 8 digit identifier&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** It is part of other efforts within ICAR where manufacturers can obtain an ID for some type of device they are offering to      customers.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Rumination Data ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Rumination Time:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Common basic agreement:&#039;&#039;&#039; aggregated summary of total minutes per animal per day for      routine data exchange. If data of higher granularity are needed for      specific purposes, such exchanges require specific agreements between the      parties involved.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Unit:&#039;&#039;&#039; min/day&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Date/Timestamp:&#039;&#039;&#039; YYYY-MM-DD (for aggregated daily values, we suggest indicating the time      period summarized for example, from 00:00 to 24:00 h)&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Total daily number of minutes with measurements for rumination:&#039;&#039;&#039; When providing daily summaries of rumination per individual cow, the receiver of the data will need more information about the data editing and handling of missing values and the completeness of the shared data. Therefore, to ensure data reliability and enable broader applications, completeness indicators (e.g., number of data points collected per day, duration of each session) should also be provided. This applies also to other animal based behavior sensor information.&lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Data of higher granularity&#039;&#039;&#039; (e.g. aggregated values in minutes per hour (min/h), minutes per 2 hours – min/2h) would      be needed for estimating the effect of circadian patterns. Such data      exchange may require specific agreements between parties for specific      projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data sharing for other activity parameters which can be measured in minutes ===&lt;br /&gt;
All agreed that the required information listed above for rumination applies to other behavioural traits that are measured in minutes, e.g., which can be measured in minutes like eating, lying as well as the other arrangements for rumination like total daily number of measurements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other potentially relevant information for genetic evaluations include the following points&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Index information and alarms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Animal-ID&lt;br /&gt;
* Alarm date&lt;br /&gt;
* Description or name of the index, which should specify how much information it represents and its main purpose, such as heat detection, calving, health monitoring, or feeding behavior assessment. It should also indicate the source of information, for example, whether it is derived from activity data, drinking behavior, or other sensor-based measures. In addition, the resolution or frequency of data collection should be described, such as whether the index is calculated on a daily, hourly, weekly, or event-based basis. Scale or coding (e.g., +/++/+++; 0/1/2; percentage; probability; mean/std dev; standardized values).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Note&#039;&#039;&#039;: there are nearly no studies using alarms for genetic analyses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Optional Information ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data from rumination based or related sensors:&lt;br /&gt;
** Frequently-collected eating time and activity level (required for some purposes – see data cleaning section)&lt;br /&gt;
** Alarms (e.g., heat detection, calving, disease) and indexes (health, activity, …) (see above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is also worth emphasizing that other data sources will be needed (or very valuable) for genetic evaluations, including reproduction data (e.g., heat and insemination dates), health events, information on housing, milking system, grazing, feeding group, and milk yield traits (daily or per milking event).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional information at sensor brand level of interest ===&lt;br /&gt;
The following aspects should be documented and clarified for each sensor brand or system used:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Animal identification:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether the animal ID can be populated using the official DHIA or herdbook identification number, or if a native link to these identifiers can be established.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Data aggregation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Specify the number of valid data points that are aggregated within a given period (e.g., daily values), noting that this may vary by sensor brand or model.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Sensor placement:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe where the sensor is attached on the animal’s body, including whether it is positioned on the left or right side, as this may influence measurements and depend on the brand or sensor type.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Handling of missing information:&#039;&#039;&#039; Provide details on how missing information is managed when calculating aggregated rumination time or other behavioral metrics.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Interpretation of null and zero values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Clarify the meaning of null or zero values in the dataset to ensure consistent data interpretation.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Trait documentation:&#039;&#039;&#039; Include documentation describing the traits measured, their corresponding units, the definition of indices (e.g., rumination index), and whether reported values represent sums or averages per session. Explain how missing values are handled — whether through imputation or exclusion from further processing.&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Computation of reported values:&#039;&#039;&#039; Describe the algorithm or calculation procedure used to derive reported rumination or behavioral values, including how data from individual sessions are summarized (if available).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;User-defined thresholds:&#039;&#039;&#039; Indicate whether users or farmers can set thresholds (e.g., for alerts or alarms) and whether these user-defined settings affect the data outputs provided by the system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Data cleaning and integration – additional recommendations related to use in genetics ===&lt;br /&gt;
Before performing genetic analyses of rumination traits, one should perform descriptive statistics of the data after data processing, including minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Rumination time is widely variable depending on various factors such as diet composition, milk production level, breed, parity, lactation stage, and production system.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For breeding purposes, the main goal is to use rumination time as an auxiliary trait for improving functional traits. Therefore, for assessing the value of rumination time for use in genetics, we need to integrate rumination time records with other datasets such as other activities, health records, calving/insemination dates, and feed intake variability.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Trait definitions ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main trait to be evaluated is “Rumination Time (min/day)”. One could consider the mean, SD, or changes in specific time windows. In addition, a new set of variables under evaluation are indicators of overall resilience based on variability in longitudinal traits, in which rumination data could be an option. Examples of these traits are rumination amplitude, log-transformed variance, and changes in rumination over time. One could also evaluate rumination patterns across lactations. Some examples of studies defining resilience based on longitudinal data are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2022)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Poppe2022&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Poppe, M., H.A. Mulder, M.L. van Pelt, E. Mullaart, H. Hogeveen, and R.F. Veerkamp. 2022. Development of resilience indicator traits based on daily step count data for dairy cattle breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 54:21. doi:10.1186/s12711-022-00713-x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Chen &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2023): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22754&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Poppe &#039;&#039;et al.&#039;&#039; (2021): &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19245&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Factors influencing rumination time ===&lt;br /&gt;
Various factors can influence rumination time. For instance, the production system adopted in the herd such as access to grazing and outdoors space, housing type, milking system (e.g., parlors, automated milking systems), feeding system (diet, feeding group), and how/where the device is attached to an animal. For genetic purposes, we can account for these sources of phenotypic variation by fitting these effects in the genetic models as described below. The rumination sensors should be attached to the cows prior to calving (or at least shortly after calving), especially to capture potential incidence of metabolic diseases that are more frequent in early lactation. One also needs to define a “learning period” (burn-in) after the sensors are attached to the cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic models ===&lt;br /&gt;
The main non-genetic (fixed/systematic) effects to be included in the genetic models are: a concatenation of sensor type and version/update; housing system, milking system, and feeding system (individual effects, concatenated, or by fitting contemporary group effect); Age*Parity; calving month-year; Herd*year *season (as fixed or random depending on size of farms); DIM; and number of days open. The main random effects are: herd-measurement date (day of measurement within herd) to cover impact of farm and day; and the common random effects such as additive genetic, permanent environmental, and residual effects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Challenges / Tricky points ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are many different sensors (and of different versions/models) being used for recording rumination-related variables, each measuring different parameters;&lt;br /&gt;
* How to link rumination data with functional traits (so far, no clear genetic correlations with functional traits and not enough studies)?&lt;br /&gt;
* Combining data from different sensor systems in genetic evaluations present challenges:&lt;br /&gt;
** Additional studies are needed to assess whether traits derived from different sensors are highly genetically correlated (i.e., represent the same trait).&lt;br /&gt;
** Clear recommendations should be provided to genetic evaluation centers.&lt;br /&gt;
** If trait definitions are similar and high genetic correlations across sensors are demonstrated, rumination measures may be treated as a single trait across sensors, with sensor type and/or version included as fixed or random effects in the genetic model.&lt;br /&gt;
** If traits derived from different sensors are not highly genetically correlated, it may be preferable to consider sensor-specific traits (e.g., in a multi-trait model) or to combine them through a selection sub-index rather than forcing them into a single trait definition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Data governance (GDPR/confidentiality) as multi-country genetic data sharing requires clear legal pathways&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Additional points to consider ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* We need to derive traits based on data from different sensors (e.g., from different companies) and estimate their variance components and genetic parameters, including genetic correlations among themselves and with other routinely-measured traits (e.g., health, performance);&lt;br /&gt;
* The inclusion of rumination time in a selection index will depend on the usefulness of the trait as an auxiliary trait, which is still unclear at this time;&lt;br /&gt;
* There is a need for evaluating the genetic correlation of rumination time across lactations as they might have different genetic background;  and,&lt;br /&gt;
* If heifers have rumination time data (will also happen if sensors are attached prior to calving), we suggest evaluating them as separate traits (heifer and cow traits)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken together, the challenges and additional points listed above define priority research topics for the next phase of work and are a key reason for keeping these guidelines as a living, evolving document that can be updated as multi-brand, multi-country data accumulate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== How to combine data from sensors with traditional recording / functional traits? ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Separate&lt;br /&gt;
* To combine in an index with traditional functional traits&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic parameters of rumination traits are presented in Brito et al. (2025)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brito2025&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;: Page 10458 (ttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26554).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Open questions to follow up&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* How to consider cows culled before a minimum number of days with rumination data? We believe we should keep this data, but it may be dependent on the data analysis purpose.&lt;br /&gt;
* How to integrate data collected in different lactation stages? (incomplete lactations)&lt;br /&gt;
* How to combine data from different sensor brands? Evaluate genetic correlations based on rumination traits derived from different sensor type datasets&lt;br /&gt;
** Could we observe less differences across sensors than data from other sensors (e.g. activity)?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to standardize the data from different sensors? (e.g., standardization based on mean and variance)&lt;br /&gt;
* Is there a value in using records from heifers?&lt;br /&gt;
* How to derive novel traits based on rumination pattern and variability? Studies are still needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Informative references ===&lt;br /&gt;
Egger-Danner, C., I. Klaas, L. Brito, K. Schodl, J.M. Bewley, V. Cabrera, M.J. Haskell, M. Iwersen, B. Heringstad, K. Stock, A. Stygar, R. van der Linde, M. Hostens, N. Charfeddine, N. Gengler, and E. Vasseur. 2024. Improving animal health and welfare by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding – a joint initiative of ICAR and IDF. Pages 56_63 in Proc 11th Eur. Conf. Precis. Livest. Farming, Bologna, Italy. Organizing Committee of the 11th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (ECPLF), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hogeveeen, H., Klaas, I.C., Dalen, G., Honig, H., Zecconi, A., Kelton, D.F. and Mainar, M.S. 2021. Novel ways to use sensor data to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 11317-11332.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lopes, L.S.F., Schenkel, F.S., Houlahan, K., Rochus, C.M., Oliveira Jr, G.A., Oliveira, H.R., Miglior, F., Alcantara, L.M., Tulpan, D. and Baes, C.F., 2024. Estimates of genetic parameters for rumination time, feed efficiency, and methane production traits in first lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 107, 7, 4704-4713.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Authors and contributors to guideline ===&lt;br /&gt;
These guidelines have been elaborated by the joint ICAR IDF Initiative on “Improving animal health and wellbeing by using sensor data in herd management and dairy cattle breeding” in collaboration of members of the ICAR Working Group on Functional Traits, the IDF Standing Committee of Animal Health and Welfare, international scientists, manufacturer and representatives of other ICAR bodies and stakeholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C. Egger-Danner&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, I. Klaas&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, L. F. Brito&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. M. Bewley&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, V. E. Cabrera&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, S. Dagan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, R.H. Fourdraine&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, N. Gengler&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Haskell&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, B. Heringstad&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, J. Heslin&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Hostens&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Iwersen&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, F. Karlsson&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, G. Katz&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Moleman&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, M. Phelan&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Rossi&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. Schodl&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;l&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, D. Sieben&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, K. F. Stock&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, A. Stygar&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, E. Vasseur&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, Manufacturer representatives&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; ZuchtData EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH, Dresdner Str. 89, 1200 Vienna, Austria,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; DeLaval International AB, Gustaf de Lavals Väg 15, 14721 Tumba, Sweden,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Holstein Association USA, 1 Holstein Place, PO Box 808, VT 05302-0808 Brattleboro, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; University Wisconsin-Madison, 1675 Observatory Dr., WI53706 Madison, United States,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Allflex Europe sas (Allflex Europe SAS), Zl De Plague, 35510 Vitre, France,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Dairy Records Management Systems, NC State University, 313 Chapanoke Road, Suite 100, Raleigh NC 27603, USA&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;TERRA&#039;&#039; Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium,&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, 272 Morrison Hall, Ithaca, New York&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Centre for Veterinary Systems Transformation and Sustainability, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, Austria&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;13&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Afimilk LTD Afikim Israel 1514800, Israel,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;14&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Nedap Livestock, Parallelweg 2, 7141 DC Groenlo, The Netherlands,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Cowmanager B.V, Gerverscop 9, 3481 LT Harmelen, The Netherlands&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;16&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;IT Solutions for Animal Production (vit), Heinrich-Schroeder-Weg 1, 27283 Verden, Germany,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;17&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland,&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, H9X 3V9, QC Canada.&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Section . Figure 3.jpg|center|thumb|605x605px|&#039;&#039;&#039;Organisations of the Authors of the Guidelines for Section 7.7&#039;&#039;&#039;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_20:_Activities&amp;diff=5015</id>
		<title>Section 20: Activities</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_20:_Activities&amp;diff=5015"/>
		<updated>2026-05-19T07:46:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Seminar by Julius van der Werf: Breeding for a changing climate 13-05-2025 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;b&amp;gt;NOTE: This version of Section 20 has been approved by the working group&#039;s Chair.  Please be aware that further revisions may occur before final review and approval by the Board and ICAR members per the [[Approval of Page Process]].&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Global Methane Genetics ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:GMG label.png|right|frameless|300x300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
The Global Methane Genetics (GMG) initiative is a global program to accelerate genetic progress in methane emission in ruminants in the Global North and South. This WUR-ABG coordinated initiative is funded by the [https://www.globalmethanehub.org/ Global Methane Hub] and the [https://www.bezosearthfund.org/ Bezos Earth Fund,] both based on philanthropic funds to support methane mitigation and prevent global warming. If you have questions about the [https://www.wur.nl/en/project/global-methane-genetics-initiative.htm GMG initiative] you can send an email to [Mailto:gmg@wur.nl gmg@wur.nl], contact Roel Veerkamp: [Mailto:roel.veerkamp@wur.nl roel.veerkamp@wur.nl] or Birgit Gredler-Grandl: [Mailto:birgit.gredler-grandl@wur.nl birgit.gredler-grandl@wur.nl].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The initiative holds the following projects:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Dairy Cattle&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
We can look to nature to reduce CH4 emissions and use genetic diversity to provide solutions. Genetic improvement, based on identifying animals with genetic predisposition for lower CH4 output and using them to breed for the next generations, is a reliable, cost-effective, and permanent method for transforming livestock&#039;s impact on the environment.  Breeding programs in dairy cattle are run within breeds and across countries. Therefore, the program will accelerate genetic progress by focusing on four major dairy breeds and organizations and countries involved in those breeds. Additionally, the program will acquire considerable leverage through investments in these countries. If you have questions about the dairy cattle section you can contact Birgit Gredler-Grandl: [Mailto:birgit.gredler-grandl@wur.nl birgit.gredler-grandl@wur.nl].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== &#039;&#039;Holstein breed&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
The largest data collection has been for the Holstein breed, but there is a lack of standardization and protocols in terms of equipment and its utilization (farm level, data processing, data sharing agreements, genetic evaluations, and data collections). Governments and breeding organizations in Denmark and the Netherlands will collaborate and collect methane and genotypes on more than 20,000 Holstein cows for the GMG database. Also, Poland and Italy team up to collect data for the GMG database, and their aim is also to collect more than 20,000 Holstein animals and develop genetic evaluations across a wide range of systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Denmark-The Netherlands =====&lt;br /&gt;
This collaboration between Aarhus University and Wageningen Livestock Research has five main goals. The contact person for questions about this project is Trine Villumsen: [Mailto:tmv@qgg.au.dk tmv@qgg.au.dk].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Setting up Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for measuring methane using sniffers&lt;br /&gt;
* Setting up international protocols to measure methane on commercial farms&lt;br /&gt;
* Develop software tools to automate the processing of data into a phenotype&lt;br /&gt;
* Combine historical data in both countries for genetic evaluations&lt;br /&gt;
* Measure enteric methane in 20.000 new cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Poland-Italy =====&lt;br /&gt;
This collaboration has the following main goals. The contact person for questions about this project is Raffaella Finocchiaro [Mailto:raffaellafinocchiaro@anafibj.it raffaellafinocchiaro@anafibj.it].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Measure enteric methane in 20.000 new cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== &#039;&#039;Jersey breed&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Currently, due to the limited data available, the Jersey dairy breed does not have breeding values for methane (CH4) mitigation. The goal of the program is to collect methane genotypes in Canada and Denmark and share this information with the GMG database. The aim is to develop breeding values that will be distributed through the World Jersey Cattle Bureau organization and national Jersey organizations in Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. If you have questions about the Jersey breed section you can contact Rasmus Bak Stephansen [Mailto:Rasmus.stephansen@qgg.au.dk rasmus.stephansen@qgg.au.dk]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== &#039;&#039;Brown Swiss breed&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
The Brown Swiss (BS) breed faces significant challenges due to its small population size, an divers environments the animals are kept. A collaboration between Germany, Switzerland, and Austria to phenotype enough animals is a prerequisite for utilizing the genetic potential of reducing methane emission of the BS breed. In addition to a population of 250 cows recorded with Greenfeed, and 1250 with the sniffer, progress will be accelerated by recording an additional 3,360 cows with sniffers. If you have questions about the Brown Swiss breed section you can contact Elena Frenken: [Mailto:Fe@fbf-forschung.de fe@fbf-forschung.de].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== &#039;&#039;Red breeds&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
The red breeds are important for crossbreeding in many countries around the world. The project aims to share and collect CH4 data from Red Dairy Cattle (RDC) breeds (in the Nordic countries, Canada, and the United Kingdom (UK)) and share it with the Global Methane Genetics (GMG) Hub. Together, they will set up a shared genetic evaluation for bulls used for crossbreeding in many more countries. If you have questions about the Red breed section you can contact Elisenda Rius-Vilarrasa: [Mailto:Elisenda.Rius-Vilarrasa@vxa.se. Elisenda.Rius-Vilarrasa@vxa.se.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Beef Cattle&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== &#039;&#039;Bluegrass (global beef)&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
All industries world-wide have been challenged with reducing emissions and beef is no exception. Genetic selection and specifically genomic selection have been identified as key tools to help meet this challenge. Methane emissions are not a local problem, but a global one and several major beef producing countries who exchange genetic material have, are, and will be collecting methane phenotypes for the purpose of genomic prediction. Individually (including those in Australia), these datasets will be limited in their genomic prediction accuracy. The BLUEGRASS alliance will bring together the key players globally, who collectively have solicited key seed funding from the Global Methane Hub. By sharing data and resources, the development of necessary reference populations will be accelerated. Locally or globally, success in the beef genetics industry has been a model of ‘co-opetition’. Breeders, although competitors, pool resources to build tools that can be used by all to compete with one another. This BLUEGRASS alliance is no different. A global alliance will come together to address this challenge, with or without Australia. Having Australia lead and ignite the alliance with MDC co-funding will create opportunities to direct this global initiative and provide first mover advantages for Australian breeders.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The program is focused on building genomic reference datasets for the main beef breeds in the collaborating countries. The animals to be recorded will be intensively recorded for other production traits, and genotyped, outside this project itself. In each country, trial or research breeding values will be produced and delivered to industry during the life of the project – enabling genetic selection against methane to get underway, and the data will underpin the ability to genomically screen the entire populations of the breeds involved in the respective countries i.e. all seedstock and commercial animals. The data collected will likely assist development of genomic selection against methane in other countries. The accelerated genetic selection and the commercial animal screening will enable real impact to reduce methane from beef cattle. If you have questions about the bluegrass project specifically, you can contact Steve Miller, [Mailto:Steve.miller@une.edu.au steve.miller@une.edu.au] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Number of phenotypes =====&lt;br /&gt;
This project will phenotype methane traits in beef cattle populations in the US, Australia, the UK, Ireland, and New Zealand. Around 18.500 phenotypes will be collected over all years and countries. It is estimated that around 7.000 phenotypes will be collected in Australia, around 1.600 in New Zealand, around 800 in the UK, around 2.000 in Ireland and around 7.00 in the USA.&lt;br /&gt;
===== Breeds and traits included =====&lt;br /&gt;
All countries included in the Bluegrass project have different breeds and different target traits included in their measurements, besides the methane phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Australia will focus on Angus and Hereford seedstock with a research population of Angus, Wagyu, Charolais, Shorthorn and Brahman being a target as well. For the seedstock they will focus on seedstock traits plus methane measurements using PAC measures. For the research populations on seedstock traits plus feed intake, carcass as well as methane measurements with PAC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For New Zealand priority is the progeny test herds. These are mostly Angus, Hereford and their crosses, including a diallel cross design. Some Angus x Simmental. Complete requirements with seedstock herds of Angus and Hereford. Focus is on the following: progeny test, seedstock traits, conception date (via fetal aging) from natural mate at yearling (then re-breeding), carcass grading on steers, feed intake on heifers, rumen microbiome on steers and heifers, seedstock traits from seedstock herds&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the UK focus lies on Angus and Hereford sired animals, both pedigree and crossbred (including from dairy dams) and they focus on liveweights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Ireland they include multi-breed/crossbreed. 30% Charolais and Limousin sired from Continental type suckler dams, 30% Holstein-Friesian and 40% beef (mostly Angus) cross dairy. They will focus on feed intake, liveweight and carcass data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The USA will be measuring Angus focused on seedstock traits from seedstock herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== &#039;&#039;US beef&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
This project will accelerate genetic selection for reduced methane emissions from U.S. and Canadian beef cattle, through phenotyping and genotyping the 18 most influential beef breeds in North America.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The primary activities of this project will center on phenotyping and genetic evaluation of the Germplasm Evaluation (GPE) herd, a large, multibreed resource population at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC) in Nebraska, USA. This herd is structured to represent the genetic diversity of the 18 most influential beef breeds in the U.S.. These 18 breeds are: Angus, Red Angus, Hereford, South Devon, Shorthorn, Beefmaster, Brangus, Brahman, Santa Gertrudis, Braunvieh, ChiAngus, Charolais, Gelbvieh, Limousin, Maine-Anjou, Salers, Simmental, Tarentaise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of methane phenotypes will occur using multiple approaches to not only maximize the number of phenotypes collected, but to also offer a comparison between methodologies within a U.S. beef production system. Based on these findings and in coordination with other GMG project teams, standard operating procedures for methane phenotyping of beef cattle will be developed and integrated into the [https://beefimprovement.org/resource-center/bif-guidelines/ Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs] supporting the evolution of these approaches into standard practice and routine evaluation in any beef breeding system. If you have questions about the US beef project specifically, you can contact Matthew Spangler, mspangler2@unl.edu.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Main goals =====&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording methane phenotypes from at least 5,500 multi-breed genotyped beef cattle and openly sharing to the GMG database and the public domain.&lt;br /&gt;
* Development and publication of uniform guidelines for both methane phenotyping in beef cattle systems and the integration of methane phenotypes into beef genetic evaluations, through the BIF Guidelines wiki.&lt;br /&gt;
* Dissemination and routine updating of genetic parameter and genomic marker effects critical for the development of genetic selection tools and deployment of methane-reducing breeding programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Sheep&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
This project focusses on recording methane phenotypes on animals in various populations, e.g. Merino, Texel, Dohne, Corriedale, maternal and terminal. In each case, those animals will be recorded for a range of other production, health, product quality and welfare traits (the exact suite of traits varies between countries). This ensures that it will be possible to determine the genetic relationships between methane traits and the other traits included in current and future selection indexes and breeding programs – meaning that breeders will be able to make informed decisions on any trade-offs between methane and other traits. In total around 16.600 methane phenotypes will be collected over all years and countries. It is estimated that around 7.500 methane phenotypes will be collected in Australia, 3.000 in Uruguay, 4.000 in New Zealand, 1.200 in the UK and 1.000 in the UK. If you have questions about the sheep project specifically, you can contact Daniel Brown, [Mailto:dbrown2@une.edu.au dbrown2@une.edu.au] &lt;br /&gt;
==== Main goals ====&lt;br /&gt;
* Phenotyping and reference populations. Fast tracked phenotyping and  genotyping up to 16,000 records of methane traits across the key countries to facilitate accurate international evaluation of animals (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic evaluation and models. Breeding values based on international genomic evaluation models to share the benefits of the established reference populations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Proxies. Development and validation of new phenotyping methods to expedite genetic progress.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding Programs. Whole farm system models to incorporate methane into breeding objectives in a balanced way and indexes to facilitate selection of breeding candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
* Education and adoption. Stakeholder engagement campaign and international development to ensure world-wide impact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Africa&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
This project focused on three regions of Africa (Eastern, Western and Southern Africa). It will will leverage and  accelerate on-going early research on GHG in these regions, strongly build capacity and team up with researchers to record CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, other economic productive traits and use the records to implement breeding strategies to reduce CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; emission while simultaneously enhancing productivity, food security and employment opportunities in the dairy and beef cattle farming systems; The source of livelihood for many poorly resourced farmers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tapping into the existing breeding program infrastructure for improved productivity for dairy cattle in the three regions of Africa, this project will result in overall program that will accelerate genetic progress through focus on phenotyping, genotyping and the use of information from the microbiome in the genetic selection of animals in the smallholder dairy system. The overall impact will be better mitigation of negative effects of climate change and more productive cows. Through selection programs based on the index developed with the phenotypic and genomic information from this project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The major activities include the direct CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; measurements on about 1.655 tropical cattle using [[Greenfeed SOP|GreenFeed]] and the use of [[Laser Methane Detector|LMD]] in smallholder farmers. Genotypic information and phenotypes captured routinely on major important productive traits that influence profitability, income and livelihood of farmers on 1.619 animals. Data sets will be linked to a larger existing data on 9.000 cows with phenotypic and genotypic information from existing projects. If you have questions about the Africa project specifically, you can contact Raphael Mrode, [Mailto:Raphael.mrode@sruc.ac.uk raphael.mrode@sruc.ac.uk]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Main goals ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Methane measurements available on 1.655 tropical cows.&lt;br /&gt;
* Tissue samples and genotypes available on 1.619 tropical cows.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic relationship between dairy cows in Western and Eastern Africa estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
* Multi-trait genomic analysis of dairy data and methane in Eastern Africa.&lt;br /&gt;
* Incorporate existing data on over 9.000 cows from existing research projects to enhance genomic prediction.&lt;br /&gt;
* Computation and the roll out of final selection index or sub-indexes developed for improved efficiency - reduced CH4 emission, lower maintenance requirement and increased milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Latin America&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of this project is to accelerate the reduction of enteric methane emissions in beef cattle in Latin America through genetic selection in key breeds relevant to Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Mexico. The focus will be on phenotyping methane emissions and genotyping animals linked to existing genetic improvement programs. Reference populations for genomic selection will be the basis to improve the estimation of genetic merit and select for lower emission. The link with ongoing genetic improvement programs provides data on other economically relevant production traits, thus making it possible to estimate genetic correlations and optimize methane emission reductions with a minimum impact on livestock productivity. This approach minimizes negative impacts on food production while preserving economic, social, and environmental sustainability of beef cattle farming. This collaborative project between national agricultural research institutes (NARI) is supported by breeders’ associations and other key stakeholders. Public-private partnerships and collaborative efforts will scale genetic evaluation for methane emissions as well as the use of lower methane emission genetics on commercial farms. Phenotypic and genomic data from approximately 7.000 animals will be made globally available. In synergy with other projects, it will be possible to increase the size of reference populations leading to an even greater impact on methane emissions mitigation. If you have questions about the Latin America project specifically, you can contact Elly Navajas, [Mailto:Enavajas@inia.org.uy enavajas@inia.org.uy]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For developing methane emission phenotyping platforms and reference populations, it is essential to upgrade methane emission recording equipment as well as standardize and coordinate the measurement of animals. Standardized protocols will be developed in collaboration with ICAR, and the criteria for selecting animals to be measured and genotyped will be established by the research team, including technicians from breeder associations. A critical component of the project involves genetic analyses, such as estimating genetic parameters for methane emission-related traits, validating breeding values in additional populations, and evaluating the impact of selecting for reduced methane emissions. Scientific collaboration will be fostered with other beef cattle projects, focusing on areas such as expertise exchange. Communication strategies will be implemented to engage stakeholders, including breeders, artificial insemination centers, policymakers, and other private stakeholders. Dialogue with teams managing greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) will also be enhanced. These activities require active collaboration among countries and stakeholders in Latin America to achieve successful outcomes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Main goals ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A Latin American collaborative network for accelerating genetic improvement for methane emissions reduction is established by NARIs, universities, breeder societies, and private stakeholders engaged in genetic evaluation programs across South America and Mexico. &lt;br /&gt;
* Methane emission phenotyping platforms are implemented, enabling data collection across key beef cattle breeds, targeting 7.000 methane emission phenotypes and genotypes of animals linked to genetic evaluations. &lt;br /&gt;
* Genomic-enhanced estimated breeding values for methane emissions will be available to breeders: based on pure-breed and multi-breed reference populations enhanced through collaboration and data sharing across beef cattle projects within the GMG initiative. &lt;br /&gt;
* The economic and environmental impact of breeding strategies to reduce methane emissions is assessed, to identify the most promising breeding strategies to accelerate methane emission reduction. The development of breeding objectives combining methane emission reduction with production goals will support policy and incentives for breeders and farmers to overcome adoption barriers and integrate the results into national GHG inventories. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Microbiome&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
The micro-HUB project will establish a reference population with metagenome and genotype data, and create a genomic evaluation system that can be used to select the parents of the next generation with microbiome profiles that produce less enteric methane while maintaining genetic progress in profit and health. The genomic evaluation system will be widely open, will target most relevant breeds and production systems. Furthermore, a large global microbiome network will be established to collect existing data and knowledge and ensure knowledge transfer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This project will start with metagenome and genomic data on 5.430 individuals from the core project partners, we will explore the opportunity to extend and expand our reference population to other countries with suitable data. By combining national data sets with genotypes, microbiome and methane information, we aim to create the largest rumen microbiome reference population globally. We aim to enlarge the reference population by more than 20.000 microbiome sequenced dairy and beef cattle as well as sheep from the Global Methane Genetics (GMG) program. From this, we will facilitate the delivery of genomic breeding values that can be used in global breeding programs to select for a microbiome composition with lower emissions and reduce the abundance of methanogenic pathways in the rumen microbiome of future generations of cattle and sheep. The project partners cover beef, dairy and sheep populations and creates an opportunity to identify a core microbiome (or set of cores) that can be used as a reference for nation-based breeding programs. The project will closely connect to the other projects within the Global Methane Program, to facilitate microbiome sampling, sequencing and genomic analysis. If you have questions about the microbiome project specifically, you can contact Oscar Gonzalez-Recio, [Mailto:Oscar.gonzalezrecio@ed.ac.uk oscar.gonzalezrecio@ed.ac.uk]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Activities ====&lt;br /&gt;
To enlarge the national database partners will obtain additional samples from animals with methane and genotype data from different breeds and production systems within the GMG phenotyping program (dairy and beef cattle). The inclusion of samples from external partners will be encouraged. Partners (also external) will be provided with instruction to collect data and sample rumen microbiome. The micro-Hub will provide stewardship for GMG partners regarding sampling, storage and shipping, as well as bioinformatic analysis. Rumen metagenome sequencing will be centralized in as fewer labs as possible (ideally only one).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference populations from partners will be combined, covering a broad range of breeds and productions systems and different geographical regions. Format of the databases will be unified. The combined dataset will be used for the microbiome genomic evaluations. The reference database will be updated with additional data coming from external partners. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will develop the capabilities to estimate the genomic breeding value for microbiome composition for any genotyped animal in similar productive conditions as those represented in our reference population. The goal is to propose recommendations based on own experience to include estimated genomic breeding values for rumen microbiome profile in breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The project will contribute to the activities organized within Global Methane Genetics and the ICAR Feed&amp;amp;Gas working group in building a microbiome network to exchange knowledge, harmonize guidelines and develop protocols. All data generated within the project will be made available through the Global Methane Genetics database. The project will collaborate with the database development to develop microbiome sharing requirements and specifications. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Main goals ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Joint reference metagenome compiled.&lt;br /&gt;
* Microbiome genomic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Release of SNP coefficients for international genomic evaluations for microbiome compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
* Network building and establishment of platform for rumen metagenome data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Working Group meetings&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The six working groups as described above meet two times a year. The GMG working group meetings are aimed to share updates about the GMG projects and discuss gaps, needs and bottlenecks in the field.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Dairy Cattle ====&lt;br /&gt;
15 May 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:250515 GMG meeting Dairy Working Group.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
27 October 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20251027 GMG Working group Dairy meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
23 April 2026: Presentation materials [[:File:2026 04 23 Presentation GMG Dairy workgroup meeting.pdf|here.]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sheep ====&lt;br /&gt;
20 May 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20250520 Meeting GMG Working group sheep.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11 November 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20251111 Sheep Working Group GMG presentation.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
30 April 2026: Presentation materials [[:File:2026 04 30 Presentation GMG Sheep WG meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Microbiome ====&lt;br /&gt;
23 May 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:202505 Global Meeting Genetics Microbiome working group meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
27 November 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20251127 GMG Microbiome WG presentation.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Latin America ====&lt;br /&gt;
5 June 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:202506 Presentation GMG Working Group Latin America meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
14 November 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20251114 Latin America GMG Work group meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12 May 2026: Presentation materials [[:File:2026 05 12 Presentation LATAM Working group meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Africa ====&lt;br /&gt;
23 May 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20250523 GMG Working group Africa meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7 November 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20251107 Africa Workgroup GMG presentation.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8 May 2026: Presentation materials [[:File:2026 05 08 Presentation GMG Africa Working Group.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Beef ====&lt;br /&gt;
17 June 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:202506 GMG Working group Beef meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11 November 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20251106 GMG Working group Beef meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Asia ====&lt;br /&gt;
1 July 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20250701 AsiaGMG presentation.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
25 November 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:GMG Asia From data to impact.pdf|here]], [[:File:Asia 20251105.pdf|here]], [[:File:2511 GMG Asia MethaneMethods.pdf|here]] and [[:File:ILRI LMD Exp 2025.pdf|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Webinars ====&lt;br /&gt;
On the 22th of May 2025 there was a webinar for all GMG project participants on effective records in the database, you can find the presentation slides [[:File:250515 GMG meeting Dairy Working Group.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the 26th of March 2026, GMG organized a webinar for measuring methane emissions using LMD. You can find the slides [[:File:25032026 Measuring methane emissions using LMD in rural livestock.pdf|here]] and the recording below.&lt;br /&gt;
https://vimeo.com/1191136932/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the 13th of April 2026, GMG organized a webinar on SWOT analysis &amp;amp; selection index. You can find the slides [[:File:2026 04 13 Presentation GMG webinar SWOT analysis &amp;amp; selection index.pdf|here]] and the recording below.&lt;br /&gt;
https://vimeo.com/1191137297/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the 29th of April 2026, GMG organized a webinar on sniffer data aligning and editing pipelines. You can find the presentation slides [[:File:2026 04 29 Presentation webinar Sniffer data aligning and editing pipelines.pdf|here]] and the recording below.&lt;br /&gt;
https://vimeo.com/1191136932/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== DAFNE ==&lt;br /&gt;
Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences at the University of Tuscia. Their main purpose is to collect primary emissions data from sniffers and GF to have emissions factors related to the species, breed, physiological state and diet management. They are engaged with ANAFIBJ and sharing data related to Holstein cattle with them for genetic evaluations. Currently they are running trials with sheep and buffalo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sheep ===&lt;br /&gt;
For this trial they are comparing 2 grazing methods using 2 groups of Sopravissana sheep, reared at the facility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Rotational, 18 sheep. Turns every 4 days on strip paddocks. 18 paddocks in total; 6 heads on 3 strip paddocks per turn of grazing. After 24 days the sheep are back to the first three strips.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous, 18 sheep. Continuous grazing on same paddock. 3 paddocks in total; 6 heads per paddock. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subgroups for both group A and B (6 heads) are randomly arranged every day. The 18 strip paddocks are the same total size as the three continuous paddocks. They have the same number of heads grazing and the same live weight load.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both groups are balanced for BW, receive the same hay in quantity and quality with ad libitum access and spend the same time at pasture. Daily sampling of the hay and residual per group is done, weekly sub samples of hay and residual are analyzed. In parallel fresh grass is sampled and analyzed to represent the 2 grazing methods. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The GreenFeed is located in the barn, at 9AM this barn is closed for group A and opens for group B and this switches every day. The GreenFeed is the only place they can get concentrates. Nutritional information for this concentrate can be found [[:File:Nutritional table sheep DAFHNE.docx|here]]. Amount of food and cup drops can be found here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trial started end of March 2025 and will last 1.5 months. They are using the GF adapted for small ruminants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Buffalo ===&lt;br /&gt;
This is a continuous trial which will last 4 months per supplement tested. First they monitor the buffalo for 4 weeks without supplement as a control diet and then there will be an 8 week experimental period with the supplement diet. During the entire period the buffalo are confined to the barn. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The buffalo are separated in two groups, in adjacent pens. One group has access to a milking robot, with the MooLogger from [[Sniffer SOP|Tecnosens.]] The other pen has a conventional milking system and the GreenFeed is placed facing this pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All buffaloes are fed the same concentrates. Nutritional information for this concentrate can be found [[:File:Nutritional table Buffalo DAFHNE.docx|here]]. Amount of food and cup drops can be found here. The buffalo’s in the GF group get the concentrates from the GF and about 1 kg of concentrates during milking operations. The buffalo’s in the sniffer group only get concentrates from the milking robot, which is about 2 kg/head/day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To account for the emissions recorded individually at different times, they compare the emissions data aggregated on a daily basis. They are using the GF adapted for large ruminants with horns&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== GasToGrass ==&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of this project is to develop new breeding solutions for the industry by finding ways to identify animals with lower environmental impact, which can then be selected as part of genetic improvement programs. This project will contribute with new strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, in sheep production systems. You can find more information on the [https://era-susan.eu/content/grasstogas-grass-gas-strategies-mitigate-ghg-emissions-pasture-based-sheep-systems website]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== MethaBreed ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:P-2025-1-15-2 FBF Logo MethaBreed Logo 01 4C-01 klein.png|thumb|170x170px]]&lt;br /&gt;
The MethaBreed project aims to improve the sustainability of dairy production by developing innovative breeding strategies for dairy cows that simultaneously reduce methane emissions, enhance feed efficiency, and support animal health. A large-scale longitudinal study is being conducted in commercial dairy herds. Using advanced technologies, individual cow traits are recorded across entire lactations and multiple lactation cycles. Data collection includes continuous monitoring of methane emissions using sniffers, feed intake (using CFIT: Cattle Feed Intake System), body weight (using CFIT and scales), and key health parameters. A particular focus lies on the role of the rumen microbiome in methane production. A central goal of MethaBreed is the development of a new breeding value for methane emissions, enabling the selection of animals with lower environmental impact. These data will be integrated with pedigree and genomic information to allow precise breeding decisions. At the same time, the existing breeding value for feed efficiency will be further refined. The outcomes of the project are expected to make a significant contribution towards more climate-friendly dairy production. In the long term, standardized breeding values will be provided, enabling breeding organizations and farmers to actively select for healthier, more efficient, and more sustainable dairy cows. For more information you can visit the following websites from the partners: [https://www.uni-giessen.de/de/fbz/fb09/institute/ith/ag-koenig/forschung/laufend/methabreed University Giessen], [https://www.fbf-forschung.de/aktuelles/methabreed-neues-forschungsprojekt-zur-reduzierung.html FBF], [https://livestock-functional-microbiology.uni-hohenheim.de/en/research-projects#jfmulticontent_c401477-2 University of Hohenheim.] Further partners are [https://www.vit.de/ vit] and [https://www.uni-kiel.de/de/aef/fakultaet/institute/tierzucht-tierhaltung University Kiel]. The project is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Regional Identity on the basis of a resolution of the German Bundestag. The project management is carried out by the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) within the framework of the Federal Programme for Livestock Farming. Funding reference numbers: 28KTF23C01–05.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== breed4green ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Logo B4G RZ RGB 1 Transparent.png|right|frameless|228x228px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect traits for feed efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions for breeding and herd management in cattle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.rinderzucht.at/projekt/breed4green.html breed4green] project focuses on researching strategies to reduce methane emissions and enhance feed efficiency within the Austrian cattle industry. Measurements of methane and CO2 emissions are conducted on both experimental and commercial farms using the GreenFeed system. The aim of the project is to collect methane and CO2 measurements of approximately 1,000 Fleckvieh and 200 Brown Swiss cows. In addition, various phenotypes such as health, body weight, BCS, metabolism, energy intake and milk mid infrared (MIR) spectra are recorded. Data on feed intake from experimental farms are also available for validation. The genetic potential of direct traits like methane, CO2 and feed efficiency, along with their correlations to health and other traits, will be analyzed. The project also includes the development and validation of MIR equations for emitted methane and energy balance. The focus will be on investigating the use of these indirect traits to reduce methane emissions and improve feed efficiency in breeding programs to pave the way for genomic selection. The results will also be used to optimize herd management. Furthermore, the environmental impact of relevant dairy and beef production systems in Austria will be investigated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== CH4COW ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Association of Swiss Cattle Breeders ([https://asr-ch.ch/en/About-us/-Zweck-und-Ziele ASR]) has launched a comprehensive phenotyping initiative aimed at establishing routine genetic evaluations for methane emissions based on Swiss derived phenotypic data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The initial project, [https://qualitasag.ch/en/ch4cow/ CH4COW], started in 2024 and will span four years. Its primary objective is the deployment of methane measuring sniffers (MooLoggers, Tecnosens) across 64 farms throughout Switzerland. Among these, 30 farms house Holstein (HOL) herds, while the remainder keep Brown Swiss cattle. The project is funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Agriculture, several cantonal governments (FR, GR, LU, SG, and ZG), and the ASR.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Brown Swiss part of the CH4COW project is closely linked to the dairy cattle section of the Global Methane Genetics Inititiative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Project status: All methane measuring sniffers have now been installed on the participating farms, ensuring continuous and standardized data acquisition. Automated data processing pipelines are fully operational, enabling seamless transfer, storage, and organization of incoming data streams. Concurrently, several methodological frameworks for data cleaning, quality control, and the development of robust methane related phenotypes are under active evaluation. These efforts aim to establish reliable phenotype definitions that will ultimately support future single-step genetic evaluations. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you would like to know more about this project you can contact Beat Bapst ([Mailto:beat.bapst@qualitasag.ch beat.bapst@qualitasag.ch]) or Adrien Butty ([Mailto:Adrien.butty@qualitasag.ch adrien.butty@qualitasag.ch])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Presentation materials ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Seminar by Julius van der Werf: Breeding for a changing climate 13-05-2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
On the 13th of May Julius van de Werf gave a presentation at Wageningen Livestock Research on selection indexes for selecting low methane livestock, focused on sheep. You can find the slides [[:File:20250513 Seminar J.v.d.Werf.pdf|here]]. You can find the recording of the presentation below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;youtube&amp;gt;PxKmxKVvVEA?si=C6x0keKAvgU009Da&amp;lt;/youtube&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Seminar by Maria Frizzarin: Introduction to milk mid-infrared spectroscopy 10-07-2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
On the 10th of July Maria Frizzarin gave a presentation at Wageningen Livestock Research on milk mid-infrared spectroscopy, equations development, and applications. You can find the slides [[:File:10072025 Seminar Maria MIR.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Seminar by Sarah-Joe Burn: Breed4Green 25-09-2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
On the 25th of September Sarah-Joe Burn gave a presentation at Wageningen Livestock Research on measuring methane emissions in commercial farms and establishing a comprehensive dataset for genetic studies. A similar presentations was given at EAAP 2025, you can find the slides to that presentation [[:File:Eaap2025-breed4green-linke.pdf|here]] and the abstract [[:File:2025 Innsbruck EAAP Book Abstracts.pdf|here]], page 250.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Seminar by Fazel Almasi: Measuring methane in dairy cows using Arcoflex sensors 25-09-2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
On the 25th of September Fazel Almasi gave a presentation at Wageningen Livestock Research on the repeatability and heritability of dairy cow methane concentration using sniffer sensors. You can find the slides to the presentation [[:File:FA-ArcoflexUpdate.pdf|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Joint ICAR Feed&amp;amp;Gas and ASGGN workshop ===&lt;br /&gt;
On the 5th of October the joint workshop between the [https://www.icar.org/group/working-group-feed-and-gas/ ICAR Feed&amp;amp;Gas working group] and the [https://www.asggn.org/ ASGGN] took place before the GGAA conference in Nairobi. The presentations can be found below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:2025 ASGGN - GGAA - A Taste of the Future Buccal Swabbing for Rumen Microbial ProfilingTB.pdf|A Taste of the Future: Buccal Swabbing for Rumen Microbial Profiling]]​. Presented by Ben Perry ([https://www.bioeconomyscience.co.nz/ NZIBS])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:2638 Booker ILRI GGAA ASGGN Oct 2025.pdf|Rate of Genetic Gain for Methane Emissions in a Maternal Production Flock]]. Presented by Fem Booker ([https://www.bioeconomyscience.co.nz/ NZIBS])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:Boris ICAR2025 v01.pdf|Association between rumen and faecal microbiome and enteric methane emissions in dairy cattle]]. Presented by Boris Sepulveda ([https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/ AV])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:CaeliRichardson GGAA Workshop 2025.pdf|Global Framework to Monitor, Measure, and Account for Methane Reductions from Genetic Selection]]. Presented by Caeli Richardson ([https://abacusbio.com/ Abacusbio])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:GGAA Workshop ICAR and ASGGN Ida Storm.pdf|Danish Perspectives on implementation of GHG regulation]]. Presented by Ida Storm ([https://agricultureandfood.dk/ DAFG])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:GGAA Workshop ICAR and ASGGN Rasmus Stephansen.pdf|Experience with CH4 sniffers, what have we learned so far?]] Presented by Rasmus Stephansen ([https://international.au.dk/ AU])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:GGAA workshop MIR methane presentation.pdf|Overview of the methane equations developed from mid-infrared spectroscopy and their applications.]] Presented by Maria Frizzarin ([https://www.agroscope.admin.ch/agroscope/en/home.html Agroscope])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:HanneHonerlagen ICARpresentation.pdf|Adding microbial data to enhance breeding for lower methane emissions]]. Presented by Hanne Honerlagen ([https://www.wur.nl/en/research-results/chair-groups/animal-sciences/animal-breeding-and-genomics-group.htm WUR-ABG])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:McNaughton ASGGN Workshop final.pdf|GreenFeed for phenotyping – our experiences]]. Presented by Lorna McNaughton ([https://www.lic.co.nz/ LIC])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:MIE ILRI GGAA ASGGN Oct 2025.pdf|Methane Index Explorer: Optimising a Breeding Value Format for Simultaneous Inclusion of Enteric Methane Emissions in Breeding Schemes and National Inventories]]. Presented by Pavithra Ariyarathne ([https://www.bioeconomyscience.co.nz/ NZIBS])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:RiccardoGGAA Presentation RB.pdf|ZELP sense]]. Presented by Riccardo Bica ([https://www.zelp.co/ ZELP])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:ICAR Working group Nairobi 5 Oct2025.pdf|Selection for lower methane livestock, selection index considerations]]. Presented by Julius van der Werf (UNE)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Measuring enteric methane in beef and dairy cattle using PAC. Presented by Timothy Bilton ([https://www.bioeconomyscience.co.nz/ NZIBS])&amp;lt;youtube&amp;gt;https://youtu.be/NjPuotrmkMQ&amp;lt;/youtube&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimating methane emissions with the GreenFeed System. Presented by Paul Smith ([https://teagasc.ie/ Teagasc]) &amp;lt;youtube&amp;gt;https://youtu.be/TnHefWoP29I&amp;lt;/youtube&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_20:_Activities&amp;diff=5014</id>
		<title>Section 20: Activities</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.icar.org/index.php?title=Section_20:_Activities&amp;diff=5014"/>
		<updated>2026-05-19T07:42:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cmosconi: /* Seminar by Julius van der Werf: Breeding for a changing climate 13-05-2025 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;b&amp;gt;NOTE: This version of Section 20 has been approved by the working group&#039;s Chair.  Please be aware that further revisions may occur before final review and approval by the Board and ICAR members per the [[Approval of Page Process]].&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Global Methane Genetics ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:GMG label.png|right|frameless|300x300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
The Global Methane Genetics (GMG) initiative is a global program to accelerate genetic progress in methane emission in ruminants in the Global North and South. This WUR-ABG coordinated initiative is funded by the [https://www.globalmethanehub.org/ Global Methane Hub] and the [https://www.bezosearthfund.org/ Bezos Earth Fund,] both based on philanthropic funds to support methane mitigation and prevent global warming. If you have questions about the [https://www.wur.nl/en/project/global-methane-genetics-initiative.htm GMG initiative] you can send an email to [Mailto:gmg@wur.nl gmg@wur.nl], contact Roel Veerkamp: [Mailto:roel.veerkamp@wur.nl roel.veerkamp@wur.nl] or Birgit Gredler-Grandl: [Mailto:birgit.gredler-grandl@wur.nl birgit.gredler-grandl@wur.nl].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The initiative holds the following projects:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Dairy Cattle&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
We can look to nature to reduce CH4 emissions and use genetic diversity to provide solutions. Genetic improvement, based on identifying animals with genetic predisposition for lower CH4 output and using them to breed for the next generations, is a reliable, cost-effective, and permanent method for transforming livestock&#039;s impact on the environment.  Breeding programs in dairy cattle are run within breeds and across countries. Therefore, the program will accelerate genetic progress by focusing on four major dairy breeds and organizations and countries involved in those breeds. Additionally, the program will acquire considerable leverage through investments in these countries. If you have questions about the dairy cattle section you can contact Birgit Gredler-Grandl: [Mailto:birgit.gredler-grandl@wur.nl birgit.gredler-grandl@wur.nl].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== &#039;&#039;Holstein breed&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
The largest data collection has been for the Holstein breed, but there is a lack of standardization and protocols in terms of equipment and its utilization (farm level, data processing, data sharing agreements, genetic evaluations, and data collections). Governments and breeding organizations in Denmark and the Netherlands will collaborate and collect methane and genotypes on more than 20,000 Holstein cows for the GMG database. Also, Poland and Italy team up to collect data for the GMG database, and their aim is also to collect more than 20,000 Holstein animals and develop genetic evaluations across a wide range of systems.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Denmark-The Netherlands =====&lt;br /&gt;
This collaboration between Aarhus University and Wageningen Livestock Research has five main goals. The contact person for questions about this project is Trine Villumsen: [Mailto:tmv@qgg.au.dk tmv@qgg.au.dk].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Setting up Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for measuring methane using sniffers&lt;br /&gt;
* Setting up international protocols to measure methane on commercial farms&lt;br /&gt;
* Develop software tools to automate the processing of data into a phenotype&lt;br /&gt;
* Combine historical data in both countries for genetic evaluations&lt;br /&gt;
* Measure enteric methane in 20.000 new cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Poland-Italy =====&lt;br /&gt;
This collaboration has the following main goals. The contact person for questions about this project is Raffaella Finocchiaro [Mailto:raffaellafinocchiaro@anafibj.it raffaellafinocchiaro@anafibj.it].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Measure enteric methane in 20.000 new cows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== &#039;&#039;Jersey breed&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
Currently, due to the limited data available, the Jersey dairy breed does not have breeding values for methane (CH4) mitigation. The goal of the program is to collect methane genotypes in Canada and Denmark and share this information with the GMG database. The aim is to develop breeding values that will be distributed through the World Jersey Cattle Bureau organization and national Jersey organizations in Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. If you have questions about the Jersey breed section you can contact Rasmus Bak Stephansen [Mailto:Rasmus.stephansen@qgg.au.dk rasmus.stephansen@qgg.au.dk]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== &#039;&#039;Brown Swiss breed&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
The Brown Swiss (BS) breed faces significant challenges due to its small population size, an divers environments the animals are kept. A collaboration between Germany, Switzerland, and Austria to phenotype enough animals is a prerequisite for utilizing the genetic potential of reducing methane emission of the BS breed. In addition to a population of 250 cows recorded with Greenfeed, and 1250 with the sniffer, progress will be accelerated by recording an additional 3,360 cows with sniffers. If you have questions about the Brown Swiss breed section you can contact Elena Frenken: [Mailto:Fe@fbf-forschung.de fe@fbf-forschung.de].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== &#039;&#039;Red breeds&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
The red breeds are important for crossbreeding in many countries around the world. The project aims to share and collect CH4 data from Red Dairy Cattle (RDC) breeds (in the Nordic countries, Canada, and the United Kingdom (UK)) and share it with the Global Methane Genetics (GMG) Hub. Together, they will set up a shared genetic evaluation for bulls used for crossbreeding in many more countries. If you have questions about the Red breed section you can contact Elisenda Rius-Vilarrasa: [Mailto:Elisenda.Rius-Vilarrasa@vxa.se. Elisenda.Rius-Vilarrasa@vxa.se.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Beef Cattle&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== &#039;&#039;Bluegrass (global beef)&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
All industries world-wide have been challenged with reducing emissions and beef is no exception. Genetic selection and specifically genomic selection have been identified as key tools to help meet this challenge. Methane emissions are not a local problem, but a global one and several major beef producing countries who exchange genetic material have, are, and will be collecting methane phenotypes for the purpose of genomic prediction. Individually (including those in Australia), these datasets will be limited in their genomic prediction accuracy. The BLUEGRASS alliance will bring together the key players globally, who collectively have solicited key seed funding from the Global Methane Hub. By sharing data and resources, the development of necessary reference populations will be accelerated. Locally or globally, success in the beef genetics industry has been a model of ‘co-opetition’. Breeders, although competitors, pool resources to build tools that can be used by all to compete with one another. This BLUEGRASS alliance is no different. A global alliance will come together to address this challenge, with or without Australia. Having Australia lead and ignite the alliance with MDC co-funding will create opportunities to direct this global initiative and provide first mover advantages for Australian breeders.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The program is focused on building genomic reference datasets for the main beef breeds in the collaborating countries. The animals to be recorded will be intensively recorded for other production traits, and genotyped, outside this project itself. In each country, trial or research breeding values will be produced and delivered to industry during the life of the project – enabling genetic selection against methane to get underway, and the data will underpin the ability to genomically screen the entire populations of the breeds involved in the respective countries i.e. all seedstock and commercial animals. The data collected will likely assist development of genomic selection against methane in other countries. The accelerated genetic selection and the commercial animal screening will enable real impact to reduce methane from beef cattle. If you have questions about the bluegrass project specifically, you can contact Steve Miller, [Mailto:Steve.miller@une.edu.au steve.miller@une.edu.au] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Number of phenotypes =====&lt;br /&gt;
This project will phenotype methane traits in beef cattle populations in the US, Australia, the UK, Ireland, and New Zealand. Around 18.500 phenotypes will be collected over all years and countries. It is estimated that around 7.000 phenotypes will be collected in Australia, around 1.600 in New Zealand, around 800 in the UK, around 2.000 in Ireland and around 7.00 in the USA.&lt;br /&gt;
===== Breeds and traits included =====&lt;br /&gt;
All countries included in the Bluegrass project have different breeds and different target traits included in their measurements, besides the methane phenotypes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Australia will focus on Angus and Hereford seedstock with a research population of Angus, Wagyu, Charolais, Shorthorn and Brahman being a target as well. For the seedstock they will focus on seedstock traits plus methane measurements using PAC measures. For the research populations on seedstock traits plus feed intake, carcass as well as methane measurements with PAC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For New Zealand priority is the progeny test herds. These are mostly Angus, Hereford and their crosses, including a diallel cross design. Some Angus x Simmental. Complete requirements with seedstock herds of Angus and Hereford. Focus is on the following: progeny test, seedstock traits, conception date (via fetal aging) from natural mate at yearling (then re-breeding), carcass grading on steers, feed intake on heifers, rumen microbiome on steers and heifers, seedstock traits from seedstock herds&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the UK focus lies on Angus and Hereford sired animals, both pedigree and crossbred (including from dairy dams) and they focus on liveweights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Ireland they include multi-breed/crossbreed. 30% Charolais and Limousin sired from Continental type suckler dams, 30% Holstein-Friesian and 40% beef (mostly Angus) cross dairy. They will focus on feed intake, liveweight and carcass data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The USA will be measuring Angus focused on seedstock traits from seedstock herds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== &#039;&#039;US beef&#039;&#039; ====&lt;br /&gt;
This project will accelerate genetic selection for reduced methane emissions from U.S. and Canadian beef cattle, through phenotyping and genotyping the 18 most influential beef breeds in North America.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The primary activities of this project will center on phenotyping and genetic evaluation of the Germplasm Evaluation (GPE) herd, a large, multibreed resource population at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC) in Nebraska, USA. This herd is structured to represent the genetic diversity of the 18 most influential beef breeds in the U.S.. These 18 breeds are: Angus, Red Angus, Hereford, South Devon, Shorthorn, Beefmaster, Brangus, Brahman, Santa Gertrudis, Braunvieh, ChiAngus, Charolais, Gelbvieh, Limousin, Maine-Anjou, Salers, Simmental, Tarentaise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recording of methane phenotypes will occur using multiple approaches to not only maximize the number of phenotypes collected, but to also offer a comparison between methodologies within a U.S. beef production system. Based on these findings and in coordination with other GMG project teams, standard operating procedures for methane phenotyping of beef cattle will be developed and integrated into the [https://beefimprovement.org/resource-center/bif-guidelines/ Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs] supporting the evolution of these approaches into standard practice and routine evaluation in any beef breeding system. If you have questions about the US beef project specifically, you can contact Matthew Spangler, mspangler2@unl.edu.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Main goals =====&lt;br /&gt;
* Recording methane phenotypes from at least 5,500 multi-breed genotyped beef cattle and openly sharing to the GMG database and the public domain.&lt;br /&gt;
* Development and publication of uniform guidelines for both methane phenotyping in beef cattle systems and the integration of methane phenotypes into beef genetic evaluations, through the BIF Guidelines wiki.&lt;br /&gt;
* Dissemination and routine updating of genetic parameter and genomic marker effects critical for the development of genetic selection tools and deployment of methane-reducing breeding programs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Sheep&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
This project focusses on recording methane phenotypes on animals in various populations, e.g. Merino, Texel, Dohne, Corriedale, maternal and terminal. In each case, those animals will be recorded for a range of other production, health, product quality and welfare traits (the exact suite of traits varies between countries). This ensures that it will be possible to determine the genetic relationships between methane traits and the other traits included in current and future selection indexes and breeding programs – meaning that breeders will be able to make informed decisions on any trade-offs between methane and other traits. In total around 16.600 methane phenotypes will be collected over all years and countries. It is estimated that around 7.500 methane phenotypes will be collected in Australia, 3.000 in Uruguay, 4.000 in New Zealand, 1.200 in the UK and 1.000 in the UK. If you have questions about the sheep project specifically, you can contact Daniel Brown, [Mailto:dbrown2@une.edu.au dbrown2@une.edu.au] &lt;br /&gt;
==== Main goals ====&lt;br /&gt;
* Phenotyping and reference populations. Fast tracked phenotyping and  genotyping up to 16,000 records of methane traits across the key countries to facilitate accurate international evaluation of animals (Table 2).&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic evaluation and models. Breeding values based on international genomic evaluation models to share the benefits of the established reference populations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Proxies. Development and validation of new phenotyping methods to expedite genetic progress.&lt;br /&gt;
* Breeding Programs. Whole farm system models to incorporate methane into breeding objectives in a balanced way and indexes to facilitate selection of breeding candidates.&lt;br /&gt;
* Education and adoption. Stakeholder engagement campaign and international development to ensure world-wide impact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Africa&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
This project focused on three regions of Africa (Eastern, Western and Southern Africa). It will will leverage and  accelerate on-going early research on GHG in these regions, strongly build capacity and team up with researchers to record CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, other economic productive traits and use the records to implement breeding strategies to reduce CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; emission while simultaneously enhancing productivity, food security and employment opportunities in the dairy and beef cattle farming systems; The source of livelihood for many poorly resourced farmers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tapping into the existing breeding program infrastructure for improved productivity for dairy cattle in the three regions of Africa, this project will result in overall program that will accelerate genetic progress through focus on phenotyping, genotyping and the use of information from the microbiome in the genetic selection of animals in the smallholder dairy system. The overall impact will be better mitigation of negative effects of climate change and more productive cows. Through selection programs based on the index developed with the phenotypic and genomic information from this project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The major activities include the direct CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; measurements on about 1.655 tropical cattle using [[Greenfeed SOP|GreenFeed]] and the use of [[Laser Methane Detector|LMD]] in smallholder farmers. Genotypic information and phenotypes captured routinely on major important productive traits that influence profitability, income and livelihood of farmers on 1.619 animals. Data sets will be linked to a larger existing data on 9.000 cows with phenotypic and genotypic information from existing projects. If you have questions about the Africa project specifically, you can contact Raphael Mrode, [Mailto:Raphael.mrode@sruc.ac.uk raphael.mrode@sruc.ac.uk]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Main goals ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Methane measurements available on 1.655 tropical cows.&lt;br /&gt;
* Tissue samples and genotypes available on 1.619 tropical cows.&lt;br /&gt;
* Genetic relationship between dairy cows in Western and Eastern Africa estimated.&lt;br /&gt;
* Multi-trait genomic analysis of dairy data and methane in Eastern Africa.&lt;br /&gt;
* Incorporate existing data on over 9.000 cows from existing research projects to enhance genomic prediction.&lt;br /&gt;
* Computation and the roll out of final selection index or sub-indexes developed for improved efficiency - reduced CH4 emission, lower maintenance requirement and increased milk production.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Latin America&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of this project is to accelerate the reduction of enteric methane emissions in beef cattle in Latin America through genetic selection in key breeds relevant to Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Mexico. The focus will be on phenotyping methane emissions and genotyping animals linked to existing genetic improvement programs. Reference populations for genomic selection will be the basis to improve the estimation of genetic merit and select for lower emission. The link with ongoing genetic improvement programs provides data on other economically relevant production traits, thus making it possible to estimate genetic correlations and optimize methane emission reductions with a minimum impact on livestock productivity. This approach minimizes negative impacts on food production while preserving economic, social, and environmental sustainability of beef cattle farming. This collaborative project between national agricultural research institutes (NARI) is supported by breeders’ associations and other key stakeholders. Public-private partnerships and collaborative efforts will scale genetic evaluation for methane emissions as well as the use of lower methane emission genetics on commercial farms. Phenotypic and genomic data from approximately 7.000 animals will be made globally available. In synergy with other projects, it will be possible to increase the size of reference populations leading to an even greater impact on methane emissions mitigation. If you have questions about the Latin America project specifically, you can contact Elly Navajas, [Mailto:Enavajas@inia.org.uy enavajas@inia.org.uy]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For developing methane emission phenotyping platforms and reference populations, it is essential to upgrade methane emission recording equipment as well as standardize and coordinate the measurement of animals. Standardized protocols will be developed in collaboration with ICAR, and the criteria for selecting animals to be measured and genotyped will be established by the research team, including technicians from breeder associations. A critical component of the project involves genetic analyses, such as estimating genetic parameters for methane emission-related traits, validating breeding values in additional populations, and evaluating the impact of selecting for reduced methane emissions. Scientific collaboration will be fostered with other beef cattle projects, focusing on areas such as expertise exchange. Communication strategies will be implemented to engage stakeholders, including breeders, artificial insemination centers, policymakers, and other private stakeholders. Dialogue with teams managing greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) will also be enhanced. These activities require active collaboration among countries and stakeholders in Latin America to achieve successful outcomes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Main goals ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A Latin American collaborative network for accelerating genetic improvement for methane emissions reduction is established by NARIs, universities, breeder societies, and private stakeholders engaged in genetic evaluation programs across South America and Mexico. &lt;br /&gt;
* Methane emission phenotyping platforms are implemented, enabling data collection across key beef cattle breeds, targeting 7.000 methane emission phenotypes and genotypes of animals linked to genetic evaluations. &lt;br /&gt;
* Genomic-enhanced estimated breeding values for methane emissions will be available to breeders: based on pure-breed and multi-breed reference populations enhanced through collaboration and data sharing across beef cattle projects within the GMG initiative. &lt;br /&gt;
* The economic and environmental impact of breeding strategies to reduce methane emissions is assessed, to identify the most promising breeding strategies to accelerate methane emission reduction. The development of breeding objectives combining methane emission reduction with production goals will support policy and incentives for breeders and farmers to overcome adoption barriers and integrate the results into national GHG inventories. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Microbiome&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
The micro-HUB project will establish a reference population with metagenome and genotype data, and create a genomic evaluation system that can be used to select the parents of the next generation with microbiome profiles that produce less enteric methane while maintaining genetic progress in profit and health. The genomic evaluation system will be widely open, will target most relevant breeds and production systems. Furthermore, a large global microbiome network will be established to collect existing data and knowledge and ensure knowledge transfer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This project will start with metagenome and genomic data on 5.430 individuals from the core project partners, we will explore the opportunity to extend and expand our reference population to other countries with suitable data. By combining national data sets with genotypes, microbiome and methane information, we aim to create the largest rumen microbiome reference population globally. We aim to enlarge the reference population by more than 20.000 microbiome sequenced dairy and beef cattle as well as sheep from the Global Methane Genetics (GMG) program. From this, we will facilitate the delivery of genomic breeding values that can be used in global breeding programs to select for a microbiome composition with lower emissions and reduce the abundance of methanogenic pathways in the rumen microbiome of future generations of cattle and sheep. The project partners cover beef, dairy and sheep populations and creates an opportunity to identify a core microbiome (or set of cores) that can be used as a reference for nation-based breeding programs. The project will closely connect to the other projects within the Global Methane Program, to facilitate microbiome sampling, sequencing and genomic analysis. If you have questions about the microbiome project specifically, you can contact Oscar Gonzalez-Recio, [Mailto:Oscar.gonzalezrecio@ed.ac.uk oscar.gonzalezrecio@ed.ac.uk]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Activities ====&lt;br /&gt;
To enlarge the national database partners will obtain additional samples from animals with methane and genotype data from different breeds and production systems within the GMG phenotyping program (dairy and beef cattle). The inclusion of samples from external partners will be encouraged. Partners (also external) will be provided with instruction to collect data and sample rumen microbiome. The micro-Hub will provide stewardship for GMG partners regarding sampling, storage and shipping, as well as bioinformatic analysis. Rumen metagenome sequencing will be centralized in as fewer labs as possible (ideally only one).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference populations from partners will be combined, covering a broad range of breeds and productions systems and different geographical regions. Format of the databases will be unified. The combined dataset will be used for the microbiome genomic evaluations. The reference database will be updated with additional data coming from external partners. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will develop the capabilities to estimate the genomic breeding value for microbiome composition for any genotyped animal in similar productive conditions as those represented in our reference population. The goal is to propose recommendations based on own experience to include estimated genomic breeding values for rumen microbiome profile in breeding programs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The project will contribute to the activities organized within Global Methane Genetics and the ICAR Feed&amp;amp;Gas working group in building a microbiome network to exchange knowledge, harmonize guidelines and develop protocols. All data generated within the project will be made available through the Global Methane Genetics database. The project will collaborate with the database development to develop microbiome sharing requirements and specifications. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Main goals ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Joint reference metagenome compiled.&lt;br /&gt;
* Microbiome genomic evaluations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Release of SNP coefficients for international genomic evaluations for microbiome compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
* Network building and establishment of platform for rumen metagenome data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== &#039;&#039;&#039;Working Group meetings&#039;&#039;&#039; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The six working groups as described above meet two times a year. The GMG working group meetings are aimed to share updates about the GMG projects and discuss gaps, needs and bottlenecks in the field.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Dairy Cattle ====&lt;br /&gt;
15 May 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:250515 GMG meeting Dairy Working Group.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
27 October 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20251027 GMG Working group Dairy meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
23 April 2026: Presentation materials [[:File:2026 04 23 Presentation GMG Dairy workgroup meeting.pdf|here.]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Sheep ====&lt;br /&gt;
20 May 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20250520 Meeting GMG Working group sheep.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11 November 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20251111 Sheep Working Group GMG presentation.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
30 April 2026: Presentation materials [[:File:2026 04 30 Presentation GMG Sheep WG meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Microbiome ====&lt;br /&gt;
23 May 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:202505 Global Meeting Genetics Microbiome working group meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
27 November 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20251127 GMG Microbiome WG presentation.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Latin America ====&lt;br /&gt;
5 June 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:202506 Presentation GMG Working Group Latin America meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
14 November 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20251114 Latin America GMG Work group meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12 May 2026: Presentation materials [[:File:2026 05 12 Presentation LATAM Working group meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Africa ====&lt;br /&gt;
23 May 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20250523 GMG Working group Africa meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7 November 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20251107 Africa Workgroup GMG presentation.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8 May 2026: Presentation materials [[:File:2026 05 08 Presentation GMG Africa Working Group.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Beef ====&lt;br /&gt;
17 June 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:202506 GMG Working group Beef meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11 November 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20251106 GMG Working group Beef meeting.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Asia ====&lt;br /&gt;
1 July 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:20250701 AsiaGMG presentation.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
25 November 2025: Presentation materials [[:File:GMG Asia From data to impact.pdf|here]], [[:File:Asia 20251105.pdf|here]], [[:File:2511 GMG Asia MethaneMethods.pdf|here]] and [[:File:ILRI LMD Exp 2025.pdf|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Webinars ====&lt;br /&gt;
On the 22th of May 2025 there was a webinar for all GMG project participants on effective records in the database, you can find the presentation slides [[:File:250515 GMG meeting Dairy Working Group.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the 26th of March 2026, GMG organized a webinar for measuring methane emissions using LMD. You can find the slides [[:File:25032026 Measuring methane emissions using LMD in rural livestock.pdf|here]] and the recording below.&lt;br /&gt;
https://vimeo.com/1191136932/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the 13th of April 2026, GMG organized a webinar on SWOT analysis &amp;amp; selection index. You can find the slides [[:File:2026 04 13 Presentation GMG webinar SWOT analysis &amp;amp; selection index.pdf|here]] and the recording below.&lt;br /&gt;
https://vimeo.com/1191137297/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the 29th of April 2026, GMG organized a webinar on sniffer data aligning and editing pipelines. You can find the presentation slides [[:File:2026 04 29 Presentation webinar Sniffer data aligning and editing pipelines.pdf|here]] and the recording below.&lt;br /&gt;
https://vimeo.com/1191136932/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== DAFNE ==&lt;br /&gt;
Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences at the University of Tuscia. Their main purpose is to collect primary emissions data from sniffers and GF to have emissions factors related to the species, breed, physiological state and diet management. They are engaged with ANAFIBJ and sharing data related to Holstein cattle with them for genetic evaluations. Currently they are running trials with sheep and buffalo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sheep ===&lt;br /&gt;
For this trial they are comparing 2 grazing methods using 2 groups of Sopravissana sheep, reared at the facility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Rotational, 18 sheep. Turns every 4 days on strip paddocks. 18 paddocks in total; 6 heads on 3 strip paddocks per turn of grazing. After 24 days the sheep are back to the first three strips.&lt;br /&gt;
# Continuous, 18 sheep. Continuous grazing on same paddock. 3 paddocks in total; 6 heads per paddock. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subgroups for both group A and B (6 heads) are randomly arranged every day. The 18 strip paddocks are the same total size as the three continuous paddocks. They have the same number of heads grazing and the same live weight load.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both groups are balanced for BW, receive the same hay in quantity and quality with ad libitum access and spend the same time at pasture. Daily sampling of the hay and residual per group is done, weekly sub samples of hay and residual are analyzed. In parallel fresh grass is sampled and analyzed to represent the 2 grazing methods. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The GreenFeed is located in the barn, at 9AM this barn is closed for group A and opens for group B and this switches every day. The GreenFeed is the only place they can get concentrates. Nutritional information for this concentrate can be found [[:File:Nutritional table sheep DAFHNE.docx|here]]. Amount of food and cup drops can be found here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Trial started end of March 2025 and will last 1.5 months. They are using the GF adapted for small ruminants.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Buffalo ===&lt;br /&gt;
This is a continuous trial which will last 4 months per supplement tested. First they monitor the buffalo for 4 weeks without supplement as a control diet and then there will be an 8 week experimental period with the supplement diet. During the entire period the buffalo are confined to the barn. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The buffalo are separated in two groups, in adjacent pens. One group has access to a milking robot, with the MooLogger from [[Sniffer SOP|Tecnosens.]] The other pen has a conventional milking system and the GreenFeed is placed facing this pen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All buffaloes are fed the same concentrates. Nutritional information for this concentrate can be found [[:File:Nutritional table Buffalo DAFHNE.docx|here]]. Amount of food and cup drops can be found here. The buffalo’s in the GF group get the concentrates from the GF and about 1 kg of concentrates during milking operations. The buffalo’s in the sniffer group only get concentrates from the milking robot, which is about 2 kg/head/day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To account for the emissions recorded individually at different times, they compare the emissions data aggregated on a daily basis. They are using the GF adapted for large ruminants with horns&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== GasToGrass ==&lt;br /&gt;
The aim of this project is to develop new breeding solutions for the industry by finding ways to identify animals with lower environmental impact, which can then be selected as part of genetic improvement programs. This project will contribute with new strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, in sheep production systems. You can find more information on the [https://era-susan.eu/content/grasstogas-grass-gas-strategies-mitigate-ghg-emissions-pasture-based-sheep-systems website]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== MethaBreed ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:P-2025-1-15-2 FBF Logo MethaBreed Logo 01 4C-01 klein.png|thumb|170x170px]]&lt;br /&gt;
The MethaBreed project aims to improve the sustainability of dairy production by developing innovative breeding strategies for dairy cows that simultaneously reduce methane emissions, enhance feed efficiency, and support animal health. A large-scale longitudinal study is being conducted in commercial dairy herds. Using advanced technologies, individual cow traits are recorded across entire lactations and multiple lactation cycles. Data collection includes continuous monitoring of methane emissions using sniffers, feed intake (using CFIT: Cattle Feed Intake System), body weight (using CFIT and scales), and key health parameters. A particular focus lies on the role of the rumen microbiome in methane production. A central goal of MethaBreed is the development of a new breeding value for methane emissions, enabling the selection of animals with lower environmental impact. These data will be integrated with pedigree and genomic information to allow precise breeding decisions. At the same time, the existing breeding value for feed efficiency will be further refined. The outcomes of the project are expected to make a significant contribution towards more climate-friendly dairy production. In the long term, standardized breeding values will be provided, enabling breeding organizations and farmers to actively select for healthier, more efficient, and more sustainable dairy cows. For more information you can visit the following websites from the partners: [https://www.uni-giessen.de/de/fbz/fb09/institute/ith/ag-koenig/forschung/laufend/methabreed University Giessen], [https://www.fbf-forschung.de/aktuelles/methabreed-neues-forschungsprojekt-zur-reduzierung.html FBF], [https://livestock-functional-microbiology.uni-hohenheim.de/en/research-projects#jfmulticontent_c401477-2 University of Hohenheim.] Further partners are [https://www.vit.de/ vit] and [https://www.uni-kiel.de/de/aef/fakultaet/institute/tierzucht-tierhaltung University Kiel]. The project is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Regional Identity on the basis of a resolution of the German Bundestag. The project management is carried out by the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) within the framework of the Federal Programme for Livestock Farming. Funding reference numbers: 28KTF23C01–05.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== breed4green ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Logo B4G RZ RGB 1 Transparent.png|right|frameless|228x228px]]&lt;br /&gt;
Direct and indirect traits for feed efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions for breeding and herd management in cattle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [https://www.rinderzucht.at/projekt/breed4green.html breed4green] project focuses on researching strategies to reduce methane emissions and enhance feed efficiency within the Austrian cattle industry. Measurements of methane and CO2 emissions are conducted on both experimental and commercial farms using the GreenFeed system. The aim of the project is to collect methane and CO2 measurements of approximately 1,000 Fleckvieh and 200 Brown Swiss cows. In addition, various phenotypes such as health, body weight, BCS, metabolism, energy intake and milk mid infrared (MIR) spectra are recorded. Data on feed intake from experimental farms are also available for validation. The genetic potential of direct traits like methane, CO2 and feed efficiency, along with their correlations to health and other traits, will be analyzed. The project also includes the development and validation of MIR equations for emitted methane and energy balance. The focus will be on investigating the use of these indirect traits to reduce methane emissions and improve feed efficiency in breeding programs to pave the way for genomic selection. The results will also be used to optimize herd management. Furthermore, the environmental impact of relevant dairy and beef production systems in Austria will be investigated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== CH4COW ==&lt;br /&gt;
The Association of Swiss Cattle Breeders ([https://asr-ch.ch/en/About-us/-Zweck-und-Ziele ASR]) has launched a comprehensive phenotyping initiative aimed at establishing routine genetic evaluations for methane emissions based on Swiss derived phenotypic data.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The initial project, [https://qualitasag.ch/en/ch4cow/ CH4COW], started in 2024 and will span four years. Its primary objective is the deployment of methane measuring sniffers (MooLoggers, Tecnosens) across 64 farms throughout Switzerland. Among these, 30 farms house Holstein (HOL) herds, while the remainder keep Brown Swiss cattle. The project is funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Agriculture, several cantonal governments (FR, GR, LU, SG, and ZG), and the ASR.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Brown Swiss part of the CH4COW project is closely linked to the dairy cattle section of the Global Methane Genetics Inititiative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Project status: All methane measuring sniffers have now been installed on the participating farms, ensuring continuous and standardized data acquisition. Automated data processing pipelines are fully operational, enabling seamless transfer, storage, and organization of incoming data streams. Concurrently, several methodological frameworks for data cleaning, quality control, and the development of robust methane related phenotypes are under active evaluation. These efforts aim to establish reliable phenotype definitions that will ultimately support future single-step genetic evaluations. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you would like to know more about this project you can contact Beat Bapst ([Mailto:beat.bapst@qualitasag.ch beat.bapst@qualitasag.ch]) or Adrien Butty ([Mailto:Adrien.butty@qualitasag.ch adrien.butty@qualitasag.ch])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Presentation materials ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Seminar by Julius van der Werf: Breeding for a changing climate 13-05-2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
On the 13th of May Julius van de Werf gave a presentation at Wageningen Livestock Research on selection indexes for selecting low methane livestock, focused on sheep. You can find the slides [[:File:20250513 Seminar J.v.d.Werf.pdf|here]]. You can find the recording of the presentation below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;youtube&amp;gt;PxKmxKVvVEA?si=C6x0keKAvgU009Da&amp;lt;/youtube&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
zzzzz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;padding:56.25% 0 0 0;position:relative;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;iframe src=&amp;quot;https://player.vimeo.com/video/1191137297?h=4f083ea0fe&amp;amp;amp;badge=0&amp;amp;amp;autopause=0&amp;amp;amp;player_id=0&amp;amp;amp;app_id=58479&amp;quot; frameborder=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; allow=&amp;quot;autoplay; fullscreen; picture-in-picture; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; web-share&amp;quot; referrerpolicy=&amp;quot;strict-origin-when-cross-origin&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;GMG webinar SWOT&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/iframe&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&amp;lt;script src=&amp;quot;https://player.vimeo.com/api/player.js&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/script&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;padding:56.25% 0 0 0;position:relative;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;iframe src=&amp;quot;https://player.vimeo.com/video/1191137297?title=0&amp;amp;amp;byline=0&amp;amp;amp;portrait=0&amp;amp;amp;badge=0&amp;amp;amp;autopause=0&amp;amp;amp;player_id=0&amp;amp;amp;app_id=58479&amp;quot; frameborder=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; allow=&amp;quot;autoplay; fullscreen; picture-in-picture; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; web-share&amp;quot; referrerpolicy=&amp;quot;strict-origin-when-cross-origin&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;GMG webinar SWOT&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/iframe&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&amp;lt;script src=&amp;quot;https://player.vimeo.com/api/player.js&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/script&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
zzzzz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Seminar by Maria Frizzarin: Introduction to milk mid-infrared spectroscopy 10-07-2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
On the 10th of July Maria Frizzarin gave a presentation at Wageningen Livestock Research on milk mid-infrared spectroscopy, equations development, and applications. You can find the slides [[:File:10072025 Seminar Maria MIR.pdf|here.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Seminar by Sarah-Joe Burn: Breed4Green 25-09-2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
On the 25th of September Sarah-Joe Burn gave a presentation at Wageningen Livestock Research on measuring methane emissions in commercial farms and establishing a comprehensive dataset for genetic studies. A similar presentations was given at EAAP 2025, you can find the slides to that presentation [[:File:Eaap2025-breed4green-linke.pdf|here]] and the abstract [[:File:2025 Innsbruck EAAP Book Abstracts.pdf|here]], page 250.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Seminar by Fazel Almasi: Measuring methane in dairy cows using Arcoflex sensors 25-09-2025 ===&lt;br /&gt;
On the 25th of September Fazel Almasi gave a presentation at Wageningen Livestock Research on the repeatability and heritability of dairy cow methane concentration using sniffer sensors. You can find the slides to the presentation [[:File:FA-ArcoflexUpdate.pdf|here]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Joint ICAR Feed&amp;amp;Gas and ASGGN workshop ===&lt;br /&gt;
On the 5th of October the joint workshop between the [https://www.icar.org/group/working-group-feed-and-gas/ ICAR Feed&amp;amp;Gas working group] and the [https://www.asggn.org/ ASGGN] took place before the GGAA conference in Nairobi. The presentations can be found below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:2025 ASGGN - GGAA - A Taste of the Future Buccal Swabbing for Rumen Microbial ProfilingTB.pdf|A Taste of the Future: Buccal Swabbing for Rumen Microbial Profiling]]​. Presented by Ben Perry ([https://www.bioeconomyscience.co.nz/ NZIBS])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:2638 Booker ILRI GGAA ASGGN Oct 2025.pdf|Rate of Genetic Gain for Methane Emissions in a Maternal Production Flock]]. Presented by Fem Booker ([https://www.bioeconomyscience.co.nz/ NZIBS])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:Boris ICAR2025 v01.pdf|Association between rumen and faecal microbiome and enteric methane emissions in dairy cattle]]. Presented by Boris Sepulveda ([https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/ AV])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:CaeliRichardson GGAA Workshop 2025.pdf|Global Framework to Monitor, Measure, and Account for Methane Reductions from Genetic Selection]]. Presented by Caeli Richardson ([https://abacusbio.com/ Abacusbio])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:GGAA Workshop ICAR and ASGGN Ida Storm.pdf|Danish Perspectives on implementation of GHG regulation]]. Presented by Ida Storm ([https://agricultureandfood.dk/ DAFG])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:GGAA Workshop ICAR and ASGGN Rasmus Stephansen.pdf|Experience with CH4 sniffers, what have we learned so far?]] Presented by Rasmus Stephansen ([https://international.au.dk/ AU])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:GGAA workshop MIR methane presentation.pdf|Overview of the methane equations developed from mid-infrared spectroscopy and their applications.]] Presented by Maria Frizzarin ([https://www.agroscope.admin.ch/agroscope/en/home.html Agroscope])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:HanneHonerlagen ICARpresentation.pdf|Adding microbial data to enhance breeding for lower methane emissions]]. Presented by Hanne Honerlagen ([https://www.wur.nl/en/research-results/chair-groups/animal-sciences/animal-breeding-and-genomics-group.htm WUR-ABG])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:McNaughton ASGGN Workshop final.pdf|GreenFeed for phenotyping – our experiences]]. Presented by Lorna McNaughton ([https://www.lic.co.nz/ LIC])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:MIE ILRI GGAA ASGGN Oct 2025.pdf|Methane Index Explorer: Optimising a Breeding Value Format for Simultaneous Inclusion of Enteric Methane Emissions in Breeding Schemes and National Inventories]]. Presented by Pavithra Ariyarathne ([https://www.bioeconomyscience.co.nz/ NZIBS])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:RiccardoGGAA Presentation RB.pdf|ZELP sense]]. Presented by Riccardo Bica ([https://www.zelp.co/ ZELP])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[:File:ICAR Working group Nairobi 5 Oct2025.pdf|Selection for lower methane livestock, selection index considerations]]. Presented by Julius van der Werf (UNE)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Measuring enteric methane in beef and dairy cattle using PAC. Presented by Timothy Bilton ([https://www.bioeconomyscience.co.nz/ NZIBS])&amp;lt;youtube&amp;gt;https://youtu.be/NjPuotrmkMQ&amp;lt;/youtube&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Estimating methane emissions with the GreenFeed System. Presented by Paul Smith ([https://teagasc.ie/ Teagasc]) &amp;lt;youtube&amp;gt;https://youtu.be/TnHefWoP29I&amp;lt;/youtube&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cmosconi</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>